Monica Lewinsky,Secret Service agents,Kathleen Willey (a White House volunteer who claimed to have been groped by Clinton),Vernon Jordan,various Clinton aides,and even New York mayor Rudy Giuliani who,as a former U.S.attorney,could address the subject of prosecutions of public officials).Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott,and Minority Leader Tom Daschle,were not,however,thrilled at the prospect of live witnesses.They saw live witnesses as a threat to their desire to stage a speedy and dignified trial that would not become an embarrassing national spectacle.Both leaders understood that the prospects of at least a dozen Democratic Senators voting to convict,the minimum necessary for the required two-thirds vote,were exceedingly slim-barring some new shocking revelation about the President's conduct. The trial got underway in earnest on January 14."Well,let's begin,"the Chief Justice announced,adding,"Fight fair."House Manager James Sensenbrenner opened the prosecution case with a monotonous summary of the case that left some Senators,such as Alaska's Ted Stevens,asleep.Other senators,including Joseph Biden,Arlen Specter,an Bob Kerry,took extensive notes.Following Sensenbrenner,three other managers had somewhat better luck keeping senators alert with a parade of charts,timelines,and video clips aimed at demonstrating a pattern of illegal obstruction of justice.Even Democratic senators conceded that Manager Asa Hutchinson's outlining of the sequence of events in the Lewinsky affair was especially effective. Some appeared to be having second thoughts about their intended votes. As opening arguments continued for another four hours the next day,senators struggled to remain engaged during what became,in Peter Baker's description in The Breach,"a law school seminar on perjury and obstruction of justice.The only break in the tedium came when lowa's Democratic Senator Tom Harkin stood and shouted,"Mr.Chief Justice,I object."Harkin's objection turned out to be to the managers'practice of referring to the senators as"jurors"when in fact their role required them to take account not only the evidence,but the effect impeachment might have on the nation.Chief Justice Rehnquist generally agreed and told the Manager Bob Barr, "Counsel should refrain from referring to the senators as jurors." The following day,arguments by the managers focused mostly on whether Clinton's conduct met the constitutional standard of a "high crime"justifying removal.In his address,Henry Hyde insisted that the label of "Clinton-haters"had been attached to the managers:"This is not a question of who we hate;it's a question of what we love.And among the things we love are the rule of law,equal justice before the law,and honor in our public life." Wheelchair-bound Charles Ruff opened the case for the President on January 19,only hours before President Clinton would deliver his State of the Union Address.Ruff told the senators that the overzealous managers had "concocted a witches'brew of charges"and were making "a rush to judgment."He accused the managers of fudging the facts to suit their case.He concluded by suggesting that senators were free to "find his personal conduct distasteful,"but they should ask themselves whether "for the first time in our history,the actions of a president have so put at risk the government the framers created that there is only one solution."Continuing arguments for the President the next day,Greg Craig said that Clinton did not commit perjury in his grand jury deposition,but rather was guilty only of "nitpicking and arguing with the prosecutors."The task ofMonica Lewinsky, Secret Service agents, Kathleen Willey （ a White House volunteer who claimed to have been groped by Clinton）, Vernon Jordan, various Clinton aides, and even New York mayor Rudy Giuliani （ who, as a former U. S. attorney, could address the subject of prosecutions of public officials）. Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott, and Minority Leader Tom Daschle, were not, however, thrilled at the prospect of live witnesses. They saw live witnesses as a threat to their desire to stage a speedy and dignified trial that would not become an embarrassing national spectacle. Both leaders understood that the prospects of at least a dozen Democratic Senators voting to convict, the minimum necessary for the required two-thirds vote, were exceedingly slim——barring some new shocking revelation about the President's conduct. The trial got underway in earnest on January 14. "Well, let's begin," the Chief Justice announced, adding, "Fight fair." House Manager James Sensenbrenner opened the prosecution case with a monotonous summary of the case that left some Senators, such as Alaska's Ted Stevens, asleep. Other senators, including Joseph Biden, Arlen Specter, an Bob Kerry, took extensive notes. Following Sensenbrenner, three other managers had somewhat better luck keeping senators alert with a parade of charts, timelines, and video clips aimed at demonstrating a pattern of illegal obstruction of justice. Even Democratic senators conceded that Manager Asa Hutchinson's outlining of the sequence of events in the Lewinsky affair was especially effective. Some appeared to be having second thoughts about their intended votes. As opening arguments continued for another four hours the next day, senators struggled to remain engaged during what became, in Peter Baker's description in The Breach, "a law school seminar on perjury and obstruction of justice." The only break in the tedium came when Iowa's Democratic Senator Tom Harkin stood and shouted, "Mr. Chief Justice, I object." Harkin's objection turned out to be to the managers' practice of referring to the senators as "jurors" when in fact their role required them to take account not only the evidence, but the effect impeachment might have on the nation. Chief Justice Rehnquist generally agreed and told the Manager Bob Barr, "Counsel should refrain from referring to the senators as jurors." The following day, arguments by the managers focused mostly on whether Clinton's conduct met the constitutional standard of a "high crime" justifying removal. In his address, Henry Hyde insisted that the label of "Clinton-haters" had been attached to the managers: "This is not a question of who we hate; it's a question of what we love. And among the things we love are the rule of law, equal justice before the law, and honor in our public life." Wheelchair-bound Charles Ruff opened the case for the President on January 19, only hours before President Clinton would deliver his State of the Union Address. Ruff told the senators that the overzealous managers had "concocted a witches' brew of charges" and were making "a rush to judgment." He accused the managers of fudging the facts to suit their case. He concluded by suggesting that senators were free to "find his personal conduct distasteful," but they should ask themselves whether "for the first time in our history, the actions of a president have so put at risk the government the framers created that there is only one solution." Continuing arguments for the President the next day, Greg Craig said that Clinton did not commit perjury in his grand jury deposition, but rather was guilty only of "nitpicking and arguing with the prosecutors." The task of