6 Monday, February 22,1999 OPINION/EDITORIAL Editorial Specter's vote shows reality, vitality of our democracy It wasn’t guilty, nor was it not guilty. “Not proved” was Pennsylvania Senator Arlen Specter’s reply to both impeachment charges against U.S. President William Jefferson Clinton. Thank you for that Arlen. For once, someone both acknowledged what the Senate trial was clearly proving and what anyone who has heard of newsprint or MSNBC knows was true: Clinton was guilty, but this case wasn’t going to get him out of Seen by many as a defection from yet another partisan decision, Specter’s vote was more. It was, possibly for the first time in the whole proceeding, a fresh breath of common sense. Finally, someone took off their tinted lenses long enough to see the futility of burning Clinton. Specter put a new kind of spin on the whole trial reality. Even with the “high crimes” debate put aside, the chances of Slick Willie having this stick to him were about as good as the Chicago Bulls winning the NBA championship this year. But we suffered through it anyway. Now, finally, we can get back to the country’s business the very same business of those who abhor the fact that Clinton remains in office as well as those that feel vindicated by a not guilty verdict. Not that Specter’s vote made the final difference, far from it. At least someone dropped the political horse pucks long enough to say something relatively thoughtful. In retrospect, his vote proved that this country’s democracy is bigger than any single person president, Senator, House manager or indepen dent prosecutor. Sometimes it’s frustrating watching this whole incredibly inefficient but representative system of government we love. Sometimes it’s a thing of beauty. This trial was not the Mona Lisa. Now, the trial hardly seems necessary. But it wasn’t a total waste. Clinton will go down in history forever linked with impeachment, Monica Lewinsky, Ken Starr and new and curious uses for cigars. His legacy is as stained as the blue dress. Meanwhile, two-thirds of the country got their wish, a not-guilty ver dict from the Senate. Isn’t amazing how the will of the majority runs this country? When it's all said and done this democracy will still work, even with a sex-craved, lying president at the helm. Common sense should tell you that. If not, Specter will It's come to this As a form of apology/explanation for the delay of the spring semester's first edition, we are again putting out the call for warm bodies. No one, it seems, has time to do much ourselves included. As we hand off our editor titles with this issue, anyone with some spare time and words would be welcomed by the new staff. Help is always appreciated. From us to those of you who bothered to read this column the last three semesters, thank you. To those taking over, good luck. Policies of The Capital Times The Capital Times is published by the students of Penn State Harrisburg. Opinions expressed are solely those of the author and are not representative of the college administration, faculty or student body. Concerns regarding the content of any issue should be directed to the editors. The Capital Times welcomes signed letters from readers No unsigned sub mission will be reprinted. However, a writer's name may be withheld upon, request and by approval of the editors. You may reach The Capital Times at Penn State Harrisburg Campus, Olmsted Building, W-341, 777 W. Harrisburg Pike, Middletown, Pa., 17057. You, may phone at (717) 948-6440, or email at captimes@psu.edu. All materials - articles, photographs and artwork are property of The Capi lal Times. No parts of this paper may be reproduced without the expressed written permission of the editors. The Capital Times does not endorse its advertisers. Impeachment wasn’t much of a trial By Laurie Asseo Of The Associated Press WASHINGTON That was one strange trial. No live witnesses. A presiding officer who could be overruled at any time. And jurors who were announc ing their verdicts while the trial was still going on. President Clinton’s impeachment trial omitted many of the protections guaranteed to defendants in ordi nary criminal trials. But the Senate also gave the de fense a big boost by denying House prosecutors a chance to put on a full case. Sen. Arlen Specter, R-Pa., called it a “sham trial” because of the lack of live witnesses or full investiga tion of the evidence. However, the Constitution’s framers allowed this kind of trial when they handed the responsibility to the Senate as a political process rather than a criminal proceeding. And they built in a high threshold for re moving a president 67 of the 100 senators must convict. In Clinton’s case, the final tally fell well short. “We shouldn’t hang our heads because it was messy,” said Charles Geyh, an Indiana University law profes sor. “It was meant to be inefficient. That was part of the genius of the framers” to ensure impeachment would not be used often. “There’s no comparison between this and anything else that’s ever happened,” said former Rep. John Bryant, D-Texas, who led the prosecution in then-fed eral judge Alcee Hastings’ 1989 impeachment trial. That case was conducted as a “real trial,” Bryant said. During Clinton’s trial: - Senators swore to “do impartial justice,” but un like normal jurors they weren’t screened for bias and were free to express their opinions in public. They also were allowed to interpret the law themselves; ordinary trial jurors are instructed to follow the law as explained by the judge. Procedures were not worked out in advance, but were negotiated during the trial. —Very little evidence was presented. Senators heard many days of arguments by prosecutors and defense lawyers but viewed only excerpts of videotaped sworn statements by Monica Lewinsky and two Clinton con fidants. Some people were not called at all, including presidential secretary Betty Currie, even though they were involved in key events at issue in the trial. Barb Roy Entertainment Editor Dianne Finnefrock Kristy Pipher Staff / Writers / Contributors The Capital Times Daniel A. Zehr Tracey Montes “We shouldn't hang onr heads because it was messy. It was meant to be inefficient” - Charles Geyh, todfena University Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist had little au thority as presiding officer, serving largely as a traffic cop to keep the proceedings moving. If senators had disagreed with any of his rulings, they could have voted to overturn them. In the end, they did not. There were no specific rules of evidence and no legal standards governing the charges against Clinton. His lawyers argued the allegations were vague and would have been thrown out in a criminal court. The impeachment process “differs markedly from the criminal justice system, and thank heaven it does,” Miami defense lawyer Neal Sonnett said. “The crimi nal justice system would be teetering on its founda tions if criminal cases were brought and decided in this way.” Criminal courts aim to ensure a truly impartial jury “rather than one that swears to impartiality, then races to the TV cameras,” Northwestern-University law pro fessor Steven Lubet said. But he added, ‘This is a good way to handle impeachment because impeachment is a political question.” Indiana’s Geyh, who also directs the American Judi cature Society’s center for judicial independence, said the Senate should work on revising its impeachment trial procedures so any future trial would be “less of a free-for-all.” Several legal experts said Independent Counsel Ken neth Starr’s investigation that led to the House im peachment vote also demonstrated to Americans the power of federal prosecutors. Starr was criticized for many actions, such as allow ing his agents to question Ms. Lewinsky without her lawyer present and forcing her mother to testify against her before a federal grand jury. But Georgetown University law professor Louis Michael Seidman noted: “A lot of the abuses that people have attacked Ken Starr for are standard oper ating procedure on the part of prosecutors. Prosecu tors have tremendous power to disrupt people’s lives.” Matthew J. Bowman Editors Jesse Gutierrez Ken Lopez The Capital Times Kim Glass Photographer Crispin Sairtwell Adviser
Significant historical Pennsylvania newspapers