Given that there was no 2/3rds majority that would remove clinton, and the testimony of all deposed witnesses is in the record, it matters little if they were all called to testify in person. 44 sinator(RATS) wouldn't have removed clinton if the Lord himself had told them to do so.
As it is, the best thing that could have happened did happen. We have GWB instead of algore, and clinton is sinking futher into his true legacy every hour of the day and night.
So no, I can't say I blame Kay, or Lott, or any of the Senators for being realist and dragging the Office of the Presidency down farther than clinton already had, in an attempt to rid us of one RAT(clinton) for another RAT(gore) that would have prolly sailed into a further 4, 8, or more years of RAT rule.
Pax vobiscum
Here's where we differ on this:
I AGREE that the Demon-Rats wouldn't have suddenly sprouted integrity and voted him out of office.
HOWEVER...don't think for a MINUTE that David Schippers, McCollum(?) et al weren't LOADED FOR BEAR with questions to ask the witnesses, and most importantly, in full view of the public. They fought tooth and nail to get witnesses on that floor.
Ted Stevens is the one who said that even a video tape of Bill Clinton raping a woman wouldn't result in 67 votes to remove. He and others circumvented a trial "for the good of the party".
This is the worst type of political whoredom; allowing a President to commit multiple felonies, and then having a "sham" trial to allow him to get away with it, with an eye to the upcoming election.
But there WERE men with integrity who wanted justice. Honorable men like James Rogan, etc., who didn't give a flying $%%^& about the "good of the party" but had a broader view, and knew that the "good of the country" meant holding the highest office-holder in the land to thge same laws the "peasants" live under.
I stand by what I said. Those who voted for a SHAM trial compromised their integrity for political gain. At its mildest, this is corruption.