---

While Washington obsesses about the President's trial, the rest of the country is busy with more important matters

---

By NANCY GIBBS and MICHAEL DUFFY

---

AS HE SAT AT HIS BACK-ROW DESK LAST WEEK, Senator Sam Brownback of Kansas listened carefully to the House prosecutors making their case and wondered about his duty to a President he wants to treat fairly, the laws he swore to uphold and the people of Kansas whose interests he promised to defend.

Except what if those people are too busy to care? A man who takes his faith so seriously that he once washed a departing staff member's feet as a gesture of thanks, Brownback has an idea about what his constituents are praying for these days: "They just want it over with," he says. And however it turns out, they tell him, it will have no effect whatever on their lives. "That," he says quietly, "is an amazing thing."

Brownback, a Republican, got a lump in his throat two weeks ago when he raised his right hand and swore "to do impartial justice." It's the President of the U.S., he thought. This is serious. "But I had a keen sense of sadness too," he recalled later. "You tell your kids not to do things that are wrong, but whatever they do, you tell them, 'Don't lie about it.' Americans all over the country say that every day to their kids. That's the reason we're here. That's the reason the Chief Justice is here, 100 Senators are here, and all this time and money is being spent. Because of that one admonition."

When they retired to the cloakrooms on Saturday night, the Senators had to admit the House managers had done better than expected in presenting the case against Clinton. On Day One, Henry Hyde was brief, James Sensenbrenner was solid, and Asa Hutchinson stole the show. But on Saturday, South Carolina Republican Lindsey Graham struck an empathic chord. Instead of insisting that the case was clear-cut, he acknowledged that the Senate faced a difficult decision.

Many legal scholars believe the President is more vulnerable to charges that he lied about an affair than that he confected a conspiracy to conceal it. But the perjury charges do not throw open the doors to witnesses, and witnesses are what the House prosecutors want above all: witnesses are their last chance to sway opinion. The obstruction case, the Republicans realized, was the fastest way to convince Senators that the major players had to be called. "Can you convict the President of the United States," asked Hutchinson, "without hearing testimony of one of the key witnesses? Second: Can you dismiss the charges under this strong set of facts and circumstances without hearing and evaluating the credibility of the key witnesses?"

Later Brownback sounds as if he is wrestling with issues of justice and mercy. "You sit in those hearings, and it's a sad role, but you realize none of us is perfect. There are consequences to actions, but none of us is perfect. If you're in a civil society, you have to
dispense justice but also forgiveness."

Questions

1. To what charges do legal experts think the President is most vulnerable?

2. Why do the House prosecutors want to present witnesses at the Senate trial?

Answers

Next Article >