ml731 asks: Do you think that if Clinton's trial were held in the private court system that he would have been acquitted?

COURT TV's Raymond Brown: It's a hard question to answer because you'd have to know whether it was a civil or a criminal trial and where it was being held if it's a criminal trial in DC which is heavily Democratic and largely black, Clinton would be in pretty good shape. But the answer is: it depends.

dr_jahns asks: Can Clinton still be prosecuted?

Frank Pellegrini: Absolutely. It's up to Ken Starr whether he wants to pursue this case after the President's term is up, against all political odds.

Egyptia764 asks: Will the President seek revenge on the Republicans?

Raymond Brown: It is inconceivable that he would not attempt to respond politically to those he views as his persecutors, but he must do it without publicly gloating. If you shoot at the king, you're supposed to take him out.

Frank Pellegrini: Yes, but, look, the President is going to try help his own agenda and his party--getting Social Security passed, preserving his legacy.

Raymond Brown: A noble assessment but part of the problem is that frequently in the past, Clinton has been at odds with his own party on ideological issues. He must now presumably make amends since they saved his tail.

Frank Pellegrini: Yes, but depends on what we mean by revenge. Winning the house would be the best revenge, and the best way to get that done is to get his policies passed.

Deuce1_25 asks: What happens to Monica now?

Raymond Brown: The talk show circuit? Such books and magazines and films as she can wrangle. And the hope of not becoming just another footnote.

Frank Pellegrini: She's doing Barbara Walters, once Ken Starr clears her. And do books, and, I assume try to lead a normal life

Raymond Brown: And then of course, there was that rumor about whether the President was going to leave his wife. :)

kristen_33314 asks: What will happen to Kenneth Starr now? kristen miami florida

Raymond Brown: 1) He is currently pursuing at least two Whitewater cases and the Hiatt-Steele case in this investigation. Then the Blumenthal investigation. And he himself is being examined by the Office of Professional Responsibility at the Justice Dept.-- and then there's the question of the Clinton indictment.

Frank Pellegrini: Sitting in a dark room for a very long while and try to figure out just why everyone hates him so much.

StageVoice asks: Do constitutional scholars believe that the actual thoughts of the Founding Fathers were followed in this procedure?

Frank Pellegrini: I would think so, except for the fact that they would probably have preferred that this case not get to the Senate. But the result seems to be in line with their intentions.

Raymond Brown: I think it's impossible to say because (1) they did not contemplate an OIC; (2) they could not have imagined the effect of pervasive media coverage; (3) they wouldn't have understood the impact of blacks and women as political factors; and probably would be surprised that sexual indiscretion could have precipitated this kind of constitutional inquiry.

XxNoellexX asks: If this was a Republican president , do you think he would of been acquitted??

Frank Pellegrini: Sure, if this was the exact same situation.

Raymond Brown: Of course. Not even a close question. In fact, he would never have been impeached (although, I don't think the Republicans like sex very much, so it's a hypothetical question).

Timehost: Another hypothetical question...

LuckyThing asks: If the economy were bad would this have had a different ending?

Raymond Brown: Quite possibly. You cannot underestimate the impact of Clinton's popularity on the proceedings.

steeda82 asks: Mr. Brown, what do you think of the prosecution's handling of the case?

Raymond Brown: By the time they refined their arguments, they had made the best of a bad situation. But they suffered from two major problems: (1) an excess of sanctimony, and (2) an unwillingness to directly criticize the President's underlying conduct -- a public figure sacrifices some privacy when elected. The question is how much? The Republicans were so busy saying "it's not about sex" they ignored this issue.

Frank Pellegrini: Good job on the facts, bad job on the PR. Proving that this was an impeachable and removable offense was an uphill battle--maybe an impossible one.

sixpence_98_99 asks: Why do you think Hillary has been so quiet throughout this whole thing?

Frank Pellegrini: What could she possibly say?

Raymond Brown: I agree. I think she's played it perfectly. After all ,there are rumors of her running for Senate in New York. Emotionally, it has to have taken a great toll on her and her daughter. She may have had an "understanding" with her husband, but I doubt if it included detailed worldwide discussion and description of his sexual activity.

kristen_33314 asks: Do you think he will try harder for issues now such as social security..etc?...kristen.miami florida

Frank Pellegrini: Absolutely.

Raymond Brown: I think he wants to leave a legacy. His problem will be to build a consensus around a solution. And the fact is that there are a number of foreign policy issues threatening to boil over like worldwide economic crisis, especially in Asia -- continued unrest in the Balkans -- major warfare in the Congo -- and Linda Tripp's book.

Frank Pellegrini: If things like Social Security fail, he can always fall back on the excuse that the Republicans wouldn't let him get it done. Don't look for him to make any big foreign policy moves because he doesn't want to take any big risks.

Raymond Brown: Keep in mind that both Nixon and Carter sought redemption through playing the elder statesman in foreign policy. if Clinton wishes to duplicate that, he has to start now.

Frank Pellegrini: Clinton's redemption is Social Security. Foreign Policy has always been a weaker spot for him

Raymond Brown: How old are you, Frank?

Frank Pellegrini: 26

ahLaDonna asks: Is he totally exonerated or is censure in the picture?

Frank Pellegrini: Censure is dead.

Raymond Brown: Yep, censure is dead.

Frank Pellegrini: But, as a lot of Democrats will say, he's been very bad, and been punished enough by the House impeachment vote

Raymond Brown: Even censure's advocates like Snow and Feingold have conceded it's dead. Ironically, the Republicans could've had censure in the House if they'd wanted it or censure with the President's signature on it before the start of the Senate trial. Censure is meaningless anyway and probably unconstitutional. (oops, do I sound like Senator Gramm?)

mr_chatmeister asks: What does Arlen Specter's "not proven" vote mean today?

Frank Pellegrini: It means Scottish law is not dead... Despite what we might think

Raymond Brown: Actually, the dialogue about "not proven" is frequent in the context of American courts because it is a clearer articulation of what "not guilty" means. For the American, "not guilty" does not mean "innocent." It means the state has failed to meet its burden, etc., etc., etc.

Timehost: How about on a political level -- Trent Lott was reportedly furious at Specter today?

Raymond Brown: Specter's always been sort of a Republican version of a maverick. I doubt if people are as surprised by his position as they are by Warner or Thompson.

presidential821 asks: What do you think of Clinton's Rose Garden speech today?

Frank Pellegrini: It was great until he took that question. His response was another example that he considers himself a victim.

Raymond Brown: Why is that so? It seems that clearly he needs forgiveness for having made bad mistakes, and he is suggesting he can forgive his obviously overzealous and partisan accusers. It's an appropriate sentiment if it's sincere.

Frank Pellegrini: But who's going to ask him for forgiveness? Republicans? It seems this is a backhanded attempt to suggest that somebody needs to be apologizing to the President.

Raymond Brown: We could understand the President if he sought revenge against people he thought unfairly attempted to capitalize on his mistakes. if he chooses to forbear, why is that not a legitimate exercise in forgiveness?

Frank Pellegrini: Because he just finished taking responsibility for lying to everyone for 7 months, and then paired that with the suggestion that now it was Ken Starr's turn to apologize. The two didn't work well together.

Raymond Brown: The president's suffering may not be unmerited but it is probably excessive. One could argue that Starr's conduct is a greater threat to ordered liberty than Clinton's peccadilloes and fibs.

kristen_33314 asks: What about the investigations against Starr? kristen miami florida

Raymond Brown: There is an investigation. The Justice Dept. investigation focuses on two areas: potential conflicts, which I suspect won't go far, and the possibility that Starr's office had contact with Tripp earlier than has been previously reported to the Justice Dept. The latter could lead to reprimands or criticism from the Justice Dept.

Frank Pellegrini: Not to mention this is the end of the IC statute.

Raymond Brown: Amen.(to the end of the IC statute.)

Timehost: Here's a question about Republican political strategy in the future...

bogajo asks: It will be interesting to see how much effort Republicans will make to "get along" with this Pres. won't it?

make Frank Pellegrini: They have to every effort. The only way they can undo the damage is to show they can still pass legislation.

Raymond Brown: And they also have to hope that this episode fades from the popular imagination before the next election.

Frank Pellegrini: It will be up to them to give the public something else to remember about this Congress.

Raymond Brown: The problem may be, Republicans are showing signs of being as fractious as the Democrats.

Frank Pellegrini: Another thing, the GOP has to figure out which faction the leadership will speak for--the moderates, or the conservatives which make up their most passionate base. And, is Denis Hastert going to be his own man, or Tom DeLay's?

Raymond Brown: True. It's important to note not only did Republicans lose the war, but they lost a chunk of their leadership.

Frank Pellegrini: Which may have been the best thing to have ever happened to them. Paging George W. Bush.

Psycho_Chihuahua_53 asks: Do you think that Starr can indict Clinton while still in office?

Raymond Brown: The New York Times published a story 10 days ago based on "leaks" from Starr's office saying that Starr believed it is constitutional to indict the President while still in office. If he does, it would have to be a sealed indictment. It would seem foolish for him to take on that legal fight. On the other hand, folly has been the hallmark of this investigation, just as arrogance has characterized the President's response.

matt___________ asks: What will happen to Linda Tripp now? matt rose

Bowhunter154 asks: What's to happen to Linda Tripp now that the President has been cleared? She obviously broke a wire tap law of some kind, didn't she?

Raymond Brown: She will be spared prosecution, but be hounded in the halls of pop culture. Having violated the one principle on which virtually everyone agrees: the duty of loyalty. And her purported defenses -- that she alone in the fall of 1998 was concerned about the constitutional liberties of Paula Jones and that she did all this for Monica Lewinsky's benefit -- is simply laughable. If she really sought public redemption, she would've done a mea culpa.

Frank Pellegrini: But she's still pulling down more money then I do.

dr_jahns asks: Will Bill Clinton ever be able to save his reputation?? - Catherine Riggs

Raymond Brown: Frank's the expert on redemption, right? :) Think of what Nixon did. Nixon was able to emerge as an elder statesman after years of a carefully planned rehabilitation. Carter was able to salvage a generally negative impression as president by championing human rights abroad, supervising elections in Third World countries, acting as a negotiator, and, in the ultimate photo op, carrying hammer and nails and building houses for Habitat for Humanity.

Timehost: And here's an appropriate concluding question -- the big one that's on everyone's mind...

evelynstevenson asks: Will this finally be the end of all of this now?

Raymond Brown: No.

Frank Pellegrini: It's all over but the aftermath.

Raymond Brown: :) There will be, as we noted earlier, a Blumenthal investigation, a Hiatt-Steele trial, a Justice Dept. investigation of Starr, controversy about the killing of the OIC in June... and endless erudite post-mortems by Frank and myself.

Timehost: And we'll make sure to have you back often for those!

Frank Pellegrini: But one place you won't hear much about this is in Congress.

Raymond Brown: That's for sure. They've had enough.

Timehost: And, as much fun as we've had for today, so have we! We've got to go!

Raymond Brown: Let's do it next time a president gets impeached!

Timehost: Thanks to you both for joining us!

TIME.com Special Report: The President On Trial

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

WRITE TO US