Share
News

Schumer Flip-Flops on Impeachment Witnesses: For Clinton in 1999, No New Witnesses, No New Evidence

Share

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer is calling for new witnesses to testify during an anticipated impeachment trial in January; however, in 1999 during President Bill Clinton’s trial, the New York senator voted that no new witnesses come forward and no new evidence be presented.

In January 1999, Schumer, a recently elected senator from New York, cast one of his first votes to dismiss the impeachment case against Clinton and against a motion to subpoena witnesses, the Washington Examiner reported.

“I wonder if the House managers aren’t a little more interested in political theater than in actually getting to the bottom of the facts,” Schumer said on CBS at the time, regarding his objection to calling witnesses at Clinton’s trial.

In a letter to Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell on Sunday, Schumer took the opposite view.

“Senate Democrats believe strongly, and I trust Senate Republicans agree, that this trial must be one that is fair, that considers all of the relevant facts, and that exercises the Senate’s ‘sole Power of Impeachment’ under the Constitution with integrity and dignity,” he wrote.

Trending:
Biden's Got Big Trouble This Fall: Powerful Trump-Era Figure Hauls in Jaw-Dropping Amount of Cash

“The trial must be one that not only hears all of the evidence and adjudicates the case fairly; it must also pass the fairness test with the American people.”

Later in the letter, Schumer noted that House managers who argued the impeachment case against Clinton during the Senate trial were able to call witnesses.

With that in mind, the minority leader said he would like to subpoena acting White House chief of staff Mick Mulvaney, Mulvaney’s adviser Robert Blair, former National Security Adviser John Bolton, and Associate Director for National Security for the Office of Management and Budget Michael Duffey.

The four were subpoenaed but did not testify before the House-led impeachment inquiry after the White House claimed executive privilege. Democrats chose not take the matter to court, citing concerns it would delay their impeachment proceedings too much.

Do you think Schumer's call for new witnesses is hypocritical?

Schumer also proposed “that the Senate issue subpoenas for a limited set of documents that we believe will shed additional light on the administration’s decision-making regarding the delay of security assistance funding to Ukraine and its requests for certain investigations to be announced by the government of Ukraine.”

“Trials have witnesses,” the minority leader told reporters on Capitol Hill on Monday afternoon. “To engage a trial without the facts coming out is to engage in a cover-up.”

“To conduct a trial without the facts is saying, ‘We’re afraid. We have something to hide,'” Schumer continued. “To just rehash the evidence presented in the House just doesn’t make any sense.”

The Democrat was pressed by CNN’s John Berman on Monday morning about the senator’s apparent flip-flop on calling witnesses at an impeachment trial for Clinton versus President Donald Trump.

Schumer contended that the Republicans, who held a 55 to 45 majority in the Senate in 1999, “could not negotiate a fair bunch of witnesses with the Democrats.”

Related:
Biden Dejected After Sinema Blocks Democrats' Attempt to Change Senate Rules for Election Bill

“The facts are much different here,” he explained. “That was about something that President Clinton did not as president, but as a human being, and a failing as a human being. This is about the president’s overreach of power.”

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi made a similar argument in September, which prompted former House Speaker Newt Gingrich to remind her that Clinton had committed a felony by perjuring himself during a sexual harassment suit brought against him.

“He ultimately lost his license to practice law,” Gingrich told Fox News at the time. “He had to pay a large sum to the woman that he had predatory behavior toward, who was by the way his employee in the state government.”

“Nancy Pelosi certainly wouldn’t suggest that predatory sexual behavior and committing a felony [is acceptable conduct by a president],” he continued.

Schumer’s call for new witnesses and evidence comes after both McConnell and Senate Judiciary Chairman Lindsey Graham of South Carolina said they would like to see a speedy trial.

In a Fox News interview late last week, McConnell said that the case against the president is “weak” and there is “zero chance” that the Senate will vote to remove him from office.

The Washington Examiner’s chief political correspondent Byron York highlighted the dichotomy between House Democrats’ claim that they have more than enough evidence to impeach the president, while Schumer contends they need more.

“There is some tension between House Democrats’ ‘abundance of evidence’ claims and Senate Democrats’ demand for new witnesses,” York tweeted on Monday. “Bottom line: House Democrats could have pressed for more evidence. They didn’t. Case is made; will now be sent to Senate.”

He added, “Democrats are paying a price for their haste to impeach. They didn’t go to court to compel testimony, but now they want witnesses they didn’t hear to appear magically and testify before Senate.”

York tweeted, the “Democratic pre-trial trolling strategy already clear. We need new witnesses! What does Mitch McConnell have to hide? What are they afraid of? New witnesses, new evidence. Americans deserve the whole story. (Except for ‘distractions’ like Hunter Biden or whistleblower.)”

Truth and Accuracy

Submit a Correction →



We are committed to truth and accuracy in all of our journalism. Read our editorial standards.

Tags:
, , , ,
Share
Randy DeSoto has written more than 2,000 articles for The Western Journal since he joined the company in 2015. He is a graduate of West Point and Regent University School of Law. He is the author of the book "We Hold These Truths" and screenwriter of the political documentary "I Want Your Money."
Randy DeSoto is the senior staff writer for The Western Journal. He wrote and was the assistant producer of the documentary film "I Want Your Money" about the perils of Big Government, comparing the presidencies of Ronald Reagan and Barack Obama. Randy is the author of the book "We Hold These Truths," which addresses how leaders have appealed to beliefs found in the Declaration of Independence at defining moments in our nation's history. He has been published in several political sites and newspapers.

Randy graduated from the United States Military Academy at West Point with a BS in political science and Regent University School of Law with a juris doctorate.
Birthplace
Harrisburg, Pennsylvania
Nationality
American
Honors/Awards
Graduated dean's list from West Point
Education
United States Military Academy at West Point, Regent University School of Law
Books Written
We Hold These Truths
Professional Memberships
Virginia and Pennsylvania state bars
Location
Phoenix, Arizona
Languages Spoken
English
Topics of Expertise
Politics, Entertainment, Faith




Conversation

The Western Journal is pleased to bring back comments to our articles! Due to threatened de-monetization by Big Tech, we had temporarily removed comments, but we have now implemented a solution to bring back the conversation that Big Tech doesn't want you to have. If you have any problems using the new commenting platform, please contact customer support at commenting-help@insticator.com. Welcome back!