Jeffries: Calling new witnesses for Senate trial part of following the ‘Clinton model’

by Zack Budryk - 01/19/20 10:03 AM ET

Rep. Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.), one of the impeachment managers selected for the Senate trial, said Sunday there is no contradiction between saying the House’s witnesses had made the case for impeaching President Trump and calling for further witnesses in the upper chamber.

Jeffries told host Chris Wallace on “Fox News Sunday” that “there is a strong case that was developed in the House.” He also cited the show’s previous guest, Sen. Lindsay Graham (R-S.C.), who served as an impeachment manager in President Clinton’s 1998 impeachment, noting that there were additional witnesses in the Clinton proceedings in the Senate who did not testify in the House.

“There were three additional witnesses, including Monica Lewinsky, who were at the center of the Clinton impeachment in 1998 who did not testify before the House proceedings but were called to be present as it relates to what took place in the Senate,” Jeffries said.

“If [Senate Majority Leader Mitch] McConnell [R-Ky.] is saying we’re going to follow the Clinton model, then let’s just follow the Clinton model,” he added.

House impeachment manager Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY) discusses the Democrat’s case for calling witnesses during a senate trial despite the House not calling them. #FNS #FoxNews #Impeachment pic.twitter.com/uky4SVNKSR

— FoxNewsSunday (@FoxNewsSunday) January 19, 2020

Jeffries also addressed Graham’s call for reciprocity in witnesses. The Senate Judiciary chairman said earlier that if Democrats’ desired witnesses were called in the Senate trial, including Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, former national security adviser John Bolton and acting White House chief of staff Mike Mulvaney, so too should former Vice President Joe Biden and his son, Hunter.

“Ultimately this is a decision that the 100 senators will make, perhaps with some involvement from Chief Justice John Roberts,” Jeffries responded. “The standard that should apply is relevance as it relates to the central allegation in this case.”