Timehost: Welcome to the TIME room! Our topic tonight is the Senate trial of President Clinton, an event that has dominated TV screens seemingly forever! To discuss the trial, and today's debate over the motion to dismiss the proceedings, we are joined by TIME's Alain Sanders, a lawyer who has covered the impeachment process, and Court TV anchor Raymond Brown. Welcome!

Alain Sanders: Greetings.

Timehost: Let's get started with a first question.

NY152_1 asks: What stage is the trial in?

Alain Sanders: The part that counts. Senators are getting down to the business of deciding what they will do. I believe the vote will be late tomorrow at the earliest.

Raymond Brown: Right now the U.S. Senate is debating a defense motion to submit the articles of impeachment (motion by Sen. Byrd).

Timehost: Do we know when a vote is expected? And then, what will happen next, depending on which way the vote will go?

Alain Sanders: The procedure is weird. Before they vote on the motion to dismiss, they'll consider whether or not to have witnesses.

Raymond Brown: If as we expect the motion is defeated, there will next be a debate on whether witnesses will be called.

Alain Sanders: No one expects the motion to dismiss to pass. The real question is on witnesses

Timehost: All right. Let's go to another question.

Marty2634 asks: Hello, If the Trial of the President come to an end, what type of "censure" document could the Democrats and Republicans come up with which will show how destructive President Clinton's conduct has been?

Raymond Brown: Two parts to that.The simple answer is that they can up with any kind of document they want. The debate over how "destructive" his conduct has been has been the main contentious issue on the floor. Everyone agrees he has done wrong. The dividing line is over what consequences for the country it had and what sanction there will be.

Alain Sanders: The Democrats will probably want something reasonably tough to show they're not wimps on this. Both sides will want to be tough. The Republicans to show they meant business all along.

Timehost: What would a "reasonably tough" censure be for the Democrats?

Alain Sanders:A statement denouncing in strong terms Clinton's behavior. There might perhaps be a requirement that Clinton acknowledge the censure as well.

Raymond Brown: The devil is in the details - the question is how far will the democrats go in labeling the president's conduct as "criminal." Will they say he committed perjury or obstructed justice or say he lied under oath? Or will they insist only on saying he misled the American people? I suspect there are as many views on this as there are Democrats, so a document that could get a majority of signatures would be general indeed. And we still haven't addressed the issue of condemnation.

Timehost: We have a question in about what's going on right now in the Senate:

John_in_cal asks: Doesn't the public have a right to hear the debate??

Timehost: Alain, would you like to go first?

Alain Sanders: The Senators are debating the motion to dismiss among themselves. Yes, the public should hear this. But on the other hand, any resolution of the case will require the Senators to cut a deal in private. So this is their first chance to do it.

Raymond Brown: Regarding the earlier question, I think Alain has added a very tough requirement for a signature. On the right to know, I agree with the first part of Alain's statement that we have the right to know, but when I last checked, neither he nor I were in the Senate - and they have the votes to keep this private.

Timehost: What do you think of the defense the White House has mounted for Pres. Clinton? Particularly today's performance by Seligman? And how have the Republicans shaped up? Do they deserve their growing image of bumblers? Raymond, any thoughts here?

Raymond Brown: To go in reverse order - I think it would be fair to call them fanatics rather than bumblers. Seligman did a good job, but perhaps the toughest defense argument

Raymond Brown: is to ask for dismissal as opposed to saying the prosecution hasn't met its burden. The White House has done pretty well and resisted the temptation to put all their eggs in the "he didn't do anything wrong" basket and given dems and maybe GOP moderates the opportunity to say he was wrong maybe even criminal, but should not be removed for the good of the country.

Timehost: What did you think of today's performance, Alain?

Alain Sanders: I agree that the president's defense lawyers, like all good defense attorneys, have given the Senators many outs on the facts and the law. The question now is whether they have the political will to take up the offers. Yo_yo_911 asks: Why aren't the elected officials listening to their constituents and finding a quick ending to this mess. Also, most people favor aquittal.

Timehost: Alain, would you like to pick this one up?

Alain Sanders: This is a political process. Republican conservatives, who hold the balance of power, have made this a litmus issue test. The Democrats have responded likewise.

Timehost: What do you mean by a "litmus issue test" exactly?

Alain Sanders: Conservatives have many gripes against Clinton. They honestly believe he broke the law, and this is an issue they want to make sure on which the party stands united.

Raymond Brown: I agree - the House managers in particular ARE listening to their constituents, it's Republican moderates who have mixed constituents who seem immobilized by this consideration.

presidential821 asks: If they call one witness, doesn't that mean that they'll have to call LOTS of witnesses?

Raymond Brown: Not necessarily - it depends on lots of things. Is this part of a deal, does the White House think it is a witness that could hurt them (like Jordan)? Or someone they would like, and finally does the White House mean it when they say they will call lots if witnesses if the managers call them?

Alain Sanders: I agree. They are using the lots of witness scenario mostly as a threat, not as a reality.

Timehost: Can you see the White House

Timehost: wanting to call lots of witnesses and prolonging this?

Raymond Brown: Not for the purpose of prolonging it, but possibly if they thought they were hurt by the managers, they might want to rebut that testimony or turn the attention to Tripp and others associated with the case. But I really think the White House wants to shut this down, little good can come for them from a long trial

Marty2634 asks: Hello, Do you think Monica Lewinsky would make a good "witness" for the House Managers or the Defense Lawyers representing the President?

CourtTVhost: The latest from the Court TV people in D.C., by the way... Tomorrow's proceedings start at 12 noon instead of 1p.m.

Raymond Brown: I think Monica will hurt whichever side calls her because she is so vulnerable in cross examination , but the House managers may be desperate enough to call her.

Alain Sanders: Hard to say. But I can't imagine a tearful Lewinsky making the prosecution look good.

Marty2634 asks: Hello, Do you think it was appropriate for the House Managers meeting with Monica Lewinsky and going over her testimony before a "vote" in the US Senate on whether she will be a witness or not in the future?

Alain Sanders: On technically legal terms, it seemed reasonable. In political terms, it was a major blunder.

Raymond Brown: No, it also wasn't smart. What they gained wasn't worth the enhanced ability of the White House to say they are treated unfairly

Timehost: Why didn't the Republicans have the poltiical savvy to realize that it was a blunder?

Alain Sanders: Ask the Republicans. They seem to have lost their savvy in this case, because they are so committed to damaging Clinton.

Raymond Brown: The House managers, with the possible exception of Graham, are fanatics... they are also desperate and feel they have to take risks

Alain Sanders: I have long believed a major reason Clinton looks good on so many issues is because his opposition seems so fanatical.

sufarmer asks: Since clinton has done the crime, why are the repulicans the villains here?

Timehost: Ray? Would you like to go first?

Raymond Brown: 1. there is obviously a difference in opinion in whether he committed the crime(s) 2. the republicans have seemed so unyielding in their opposition, they have unified the Democrats and forced many centrists to side with Clinton -- despite the GOP, many people feel this is just about sex.

Timehost: What do you think, Alain?

Alain Sanders: I agree. Plus there is the very real constitutional question. To convict, Senators have to conclude it's a constitutional high crime and misdemeanor. And I think in this case, this is a high hurdle to pass..

CourtTVhost: Another flash from the CTV folks in Washington. Expect to see a witness list appear tomorrow.

HunterInNY asks: Sexual harassment cases run rampant in the corporate world and many CEO's and middle managers are FIRED on the same grounds as Clinton, military personnel with LESSER charges are stripped off their rank and shunned from the military and MANY COMMITTED SUICIDE for that disgrace and Clinton is pardoned?

Timehost: Alain, would you like to go first? By the way, the Senators are still in session debating the motion to dismiss the trial, CNN reports.

Alain Sanders: No one is suggesting a pardon. Everyone is only considering what is the appropriate way to deal with the only person in the country to be elected by all of us. Becasuse of that unique status, there is as our constitution puts in only a unique way to deal with this: impeachment.

Raymond Brown: 1. He didn't get off on the issue of sexual harassment, he was a defendant in Paula Jones v. Clinton, which was dismissed, appealed and settled. 2. No pardon has been issued. 3. He was sued civilly. He can still be held in contempt by the trial judge in the civil case, and prosecuted by Starr once he leaves the White House. In short, he's not getting off scott free.

John_in_cal asks: Hi Ray! I think that Court TV is doing a great job with the hearings. But do the ratings support gavel to gavel coverage?

Jake0099 asks: enough is enough....i think all of the senators and all of the house managers have had their time on tv....lets end it!

Raymond Brown: Thanks for the compliment. There is a tradition in Court TV of generally not "exposing" on-air people to the corrupting influence of ratings. My own view is nobody is providing more coverage than Court TV, I hope the viewers can find us.

Timehost: Do you feel like the public is suffering from an information overload, Alain?

Alain Sanders: Yes!!!!! Most people have voted with their TV switches on this. They've turned off their sets.

Timehost: We have a question that goes back to an earlier one about punishment for Clinton:

heavyduty78 asks: if clinton is not impeached, can he be punished for his wrong doing?

Timehost: Let's say, legally speaking. How heavy duty could the punishment be? Aside from censure?

Raymond Brown: He could go to jail - pretty heavy duty.

Alain Sanders: I would only add that Clinton has probably been punished already. How has he been able to face his wife and daughter on this? I shudder to think. What legal punishment could be any worse?

Timehost: That brings us to a question on perjury, one of the charges against Clinton.

Timehost: If he could go to jail potentially, what is the standard? diablo_advocates asks: What are the essiential elements of perjury?

Timehost: And would it meet the standard for going to jail?

Raymond Brown: A material false statement made under oath is the standard. The federal sentencing guidelines are very complex and it would be almost impossible to say in advance what his "exposure" would be - personally I hope we never have to make those calculations. We should be talking about whether there would be Cambodian war crimes trials.

Timehost: We have a comment in about the earlier question on punishment.

El_Alcahuete asks: True, most people would be fired; but this is not the local manager, this is our President. The fact is that the people judge this and decide that this is not worth impeaching him.

Timehost: Do you think, Alain,that support ratings like the 69 percent that Clinton just received in a CNN poll is the primary factor guiding the Senate now? Should it be a factor in their decision?

Alain Sanders: No. Senators want to make the Senate look good, and make their respective parties look responsible. But like all good judges, they can't help but take "judicial notice" of public opinion when they ultimately make their decision.

Timehost: All right, we have time for just a few more questions, so let's go to this next one:

NightOwl_2000A asks: Why don't they just vote now? It's not like the senators have not already made up their minds.

Timehost: Raymond?

Raymond Brown: The Republicans are reluctant to slam dunk the House Managers by not giving them some opportunity for a real trial, that's why they're dithering. On the earlier point concerning polls, I disagree slightly with Alain. To the extent that senators must concern themselves with the "public good," they should consider, but not be bound by the public's perception of how good the president's stewardship is and how much his conduct hurts the country.

BrotherMitch asks: How can the President's lawyers defend Clinton of obstruction of justice when the President went over things with Betty Curry that the President knew to be a lie?

Timehost: Alain?

Alain Sanders: It's a matter of how you interpret an ambiguous set of facts. Most people probably don't believe the President. But the lawyers can certainly make the argument.

Raymond Brown: I agree the statement is ambiguous. It is not the strongest argument against the president.

Fan_of_KU asks: Is the president paying for a cent of his defense?

Raymond Brown: I'm not sure, but my recollection is that the lawyers are paid by a defense fund because, at the time the payment of the Jones settlement was discussed, he was advised not to use that fund to pay her. But Charles Ruff, the White House Counsel, is probably being paid by you and me.

Alain Sanders: This entire extravangaza, President's defense, House impeachment, and Senate trial is being paid by you and me. Wonderful, isn't it?

Timehost: All right, we have time for one last question, and it'd be great if we could have commentary from you both.

RoXy_ChiC_4ya asks: In a teen perspective, I think that as long as the President is doing his job as a good President I think what he does in his private life is private. What do you think will come about all this,and what do you think will happen if the president IS removed from office?

Timehost: Alain, your thoughts?

Alain Sanders: Removal, I think, would bring political chaos and bitter partisan fighting. Non-removal, which is the most likely scenario, will bring deep introspection within the GOP and a major debate as to where to take the party henceforth.

Raymond Brown: If the question is whether the private lives of public officials are more likely to become political cannon fodder, I think, sadly, the answer is yes. His removal probably raises more long term problems than short-term problems.

Timehost: Such as?

Raymond Brown: The Republicans are right. The country will not sink into the ocean if the president is removed. However, we will have significantly lowered the standard for what is impeachable and have given the Democrats powerful incentive to go after the next GOP president, who is vulnerable (e.g. if Reagan had followed a Clinton impeachment, I think he may have had more trouble with Iran-Contra.)

Timehost: Do we have any news from CTV on when the vote to dismiss will take place?

Alain Sanders: One last thought. No matter what the Senate decides, the American people will get to make the final judgment. They will get the chance to say what they think of all this in the 2000 election.

Timehost: Good point.

CourtTVhost: As to the timing of the votes, what we're hearing is that arguments on both motions will come after debate on both motions. In other words, tonight may wrap with an end to debate on the motion to dismiss, and then when the Senate picks it up tomorrow, they'll start with arguments on the motion for witnesses. After both of those are complete, the Senate will likely debate witnesses. And we're hearing they'll vote on both motions, probably back-to-back. That's likely a Wednesday event. But the Senators are making this up as they go along, so it all could change. that's all we know in our corner right now.

Timehost: OK, thanks for that update! And a big thanks to both of our guests for being with us tonight to discuss the president's trial. We enjoyed having you.

Alain Sanders: It was my pleasure.

Timehost: Thanks, Alain. And thanks to you, Ray. To our audience, thanks for stopping by! Look forward to seeing you back soon! Good night!

TIME.com Special Report: Scandal in the White House

Copyright © 1998 Yahoo! Chat and TIME. All rights reserved.

WRITE TO US