Make your own free website on Tripod.com

Dare Inquire Representatives Truth

WHAT THEY WILL SAY

Burden of Proof's Greta said: "Wait, he may not be the Chief Law Enforcement officer of the United States!"

How silly.

Sillier were Alan Dershowitz's comments about the Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court:

"...we have the other Chief Justice William Rehnquist, active former Republican, man who had his own problems about whether he testified truthfully in his own confirmation hearing as to the authorship of a memorandum about Plessy versus Ferguson and whose views they reflected..."

Burden of Proof Impeachment of the President: Is Senate Trial Headed for the Fast Track? Aired January 4, 1999 - 12:30 a.m. ET



Check back :More DIRT

Silly vs. Sillier

Burden of Proof: Jan. 4, 1999

SILLY GRETA, SILLIER DERSHOWITZ

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.

SILLY GRETA

COSSACK: Alan, let me ask you this issue. Let's go back to what you suggested on the summary judgment motion. How do you answer the argument that is brought up that goes like this: He is the chief law- enforcement officer of the United States; therefore, when he...

VAN SUSTEREN: He's not, though, Roger. He may...

COSSACK: ... testifies...

VAN SUSTEREN: Wait a second, Roger. He may not be the chief law-enforcement officer. That was the problem in the 81 questions. He was asked whether he's the chief law-enforcement officer. It may very well be that's the job of the attorney general. He's the chief executive. That's unclear.

COSSACK: Alan, let's assume that he's the chief law-enforcement officer of the United States, and he now has to answer the question about did you lie under oath. Does that bring him closer to a high crime and misdemeanor in terms of acting in an official capacity?

Cossack just ignored Greta. Is President Clinton worth this spectacle by so-called liberated women? Greta, are you willing to rewrite and reinterpret the U.S. Constitution in order to defend the perjury of President Clinton?

SILLIER DERSHOWITZ

DERSHOWITZ: Well, the irony, of course, is there is a Supreme Court decision which basically says that, in a criminal case, the same standard that would apply after the case is over in evaluating the sufficiency of the case legally should be applied prior to the case, which would suggest that you need to have two-thirds of the Senate to continue to have the case go forward. But guess who dissented from that decision? Chief Justice Rehnquist wrote a dissenting opinion, and it would be interesting to see, when he sits as a presiding judge, whether he applies the law as the majority of the Supreme Court wrote it in that decision or whether he follows his own dissenting opinion.

VAN SUSTEREN: But can he be trumped by the Senate even if he decides this, that the Senate could turn around and decide it differently over and above him, right?

DERSHOWITZ: That's the irony. He could decide that it takes two-thirds, and the Senate by a majority could say, "No, it only takes a majority." Look, this is really unchartered territory because there is no precedent. The Andrew Johnson case is not a precedent because there were no real factual disputes there. Everybody knew what he did. He fired the secretary of war. He claimed the statute was unconstitutional. There was a several-month trial on that issue. The same thing with many of the judges who have been impeached. There have been prior criminal trials. This is the first time in history that we have an impeachment over very disputed issues of fact but over a claim that, even if the facts were to be proved, they would not rise to the level of an impeachable offense or a removable offense. That's why I think we're going to see a lot of new law made. That's why I suspect the role of the chief justice may be the wildcard here. We just don't know what he'll do. There's one Chief Justice William Rehnquist, the author, who wrote the book which is very, very favorable to a narrow view of impeachable offenses. Then we have the other Chief Justice William Rehnquist, active former Republican, man who had his own problems about whether he testified truthfully in his own confirmation hearing as to the authorship of a memorandum about Plessy versus Ferguson and whose views they reflected, a man who had a restrictive carbonate in his own home, a man who was active in early Republican right-wing politics, whether that Rehnquist will be presiding or Rehnquist the author will be presiding.

VAN SUSTEREN: And we need to...

FEIN: Well, there are two other elements...

VAN SUSTEREN: Let me -- hang on for one second, Bruce, because we have to take a break, and we're going to come right back and talk about Chief Justice William Rehnquist, and if he crosses the street to hold court in the Capitol, will there be some witnesses who follow him on to the Senate floor?

END TRANSCRIPT EXCERPTS