Republicans in 1999 made the opposite argument: That if the White House disputed the facts of the case, it was important for senators to look witnesses in the eye and get a sense of who to believe -- even if they had already testified previously.
Here's what Rep. Sensenbrenner said at the time:
"Should the President's counsel dispute the facts as laid out by the House of Representatives, the Senate will need to hear from live witnesses in order to reach a proper and fair judgment as to the
truthful facts of this case."
"Should the President's counsel dispute the facts as laid out by the House of Representatives, the Senate will need to hear from live witnesses in order to reach a proper and fair judgment as to the
truthful facts of this case."
Here's what then-Rep. Lindsey Graham said:
"You know the facts pretty well. If there is any doubt, let's call witnesses and let's develop them fully, and leave no doubt on the table, and make sure that history will judge us well."
"You know the facts pretty well. If there is any doubt, let's call witnesses and let's develop them fully, and leave no doubt on the table, and make sure that history will judge us well."
