|
 |
| |||||||||||||||||||||
Senate trial looks likelyDemocratic senators approach GOP moderates on censure
December 28, 1998 WASHINGTON (AllPolitics, December 28) -- An almost-certain Senate impeachment trial is now looming, though most senators do not believe the votes exist to remove President Bill Clinton from office. But in an effort to resolve the matter quickly, Senate Democrats are approaching some moderate Republicans on censure. Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle said that even though he does not believe there are enough votes in the Senate to convict the president of the articles he was impeached for, there will be a trial. "I think we have to start the process. The Constitution lays out a procedure by which we ought to begin, and I think the Senate will follow that," Daschle (D-South Dakota) said on NBC's "Meet The Press." In this report:
Daschle said that he and Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott (R-Mississippi) have not decided on a date for the trial, but it could begin as early as January 7 or 8. "I think it's fair to say, on a bipartisan basis, the votes today aren't there for impeachment," said Daschle. "You would need 67, and I don't think they're there on either side." Senate Democrats approach moderate Republicans on censureIn a push for censure, Senate Democrats are approaching moderate Republicans. Among those are Rhode Island Sen. John Chafee. Chafee has a reputation for consistently searching for ways to soften GOP bills he thinks are too rigid. Up for his fifth term in 2000, he remains open to all possibilities. He has not yet said yes to censure, but he has not said no either. "I want to see the lay of the land. We'll start with some evidence and actually, I think that will be one of the big items right at the beginning to decide. Do they have to put in fresh evidence or can we go by the record?" Chafee said. The most liberal Republican in the Senate, Vermont's Sen. Jim Jeffords, votes with Democrats more often than any other Republican. Jeffords thinks a protracted trial is not in the country's best interest. He is inclined to support some sort of censure. Jeffords is up for re-election in 2000 as is Maine's Sen. Olympia Snowe. In her first term, Snowe has frequently tried to smooth the edges of GOP legislation. On this issue, she thinks the punishment should fit the offense. She has not embraced censure, but remains open to it. Moving into her third year, Maine's other Republican senator, Susan Collins, has shown surprising independence for a freshman. She is open to all possibilities, but may well want a presidential admission to lying under oath as part of any censure deal. The highest profiles in the moderate cadre are two possible Republican presidential candidates for 2000. Conventional wisdom would dictate that neither Arizona's Sen. John McCain or Tennessee's Sen. Fred Thompson would want to upset the party's conservative base. But neither has proven particularly conventional. McCain's office issued a statement saying, "... suggestions that he will vote one way or another ... amount to nothing more than idle speculation by people who are apparently entirely unfamiliar with the senator's view." Thompson has also declined to show his hand. Six Republican votes for censure combined with 45 votes by Democrats would create a 51 vote majority that could change the course of things to come. Though it should not be assumed that all Republicans except those being approached by Democrats want a full-blown trial, and it should also not be assumed that all Democrats are set on censure. A quick trialAlthough many House Democrats favor censuring the president rather than removing him from office, key Senate Republicans say censure should be considered only after a speedy impeachment trial, and perhaps only after a vote on whether to remove the president from office. "We ought to vote on these articles of impeachment, and then that is the appropriate time to consider a censure," Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-Kentucky) said on "Fox News Sunday." "Assuming neither of those articles pass, which is what's widely expected will be the outcome ... you sit down and you negotiate the censure alternative." The Senate is set to consider two articles of impeachment passed this month by the House, but significant questions remain over whether a deal for censuring the president can be worked out before a trial begins. Conviction unlikely?Senators of both parties widely agree that there's little chance that the chamber will vote to convict and remove Clinton. Internal surveys to see whether two-thirds of the Senate would vote for removal will not begin until after the trial opens, said Judiciary Chairman Orrin Hatch (R-Utah). Lacking the needed 67 votes, Senate leaders then would "come up with the strongest censure resolution there is," Hatch said on CBS' "Face the Nation." Moynihan's roleDemocrats are pushing for a strongly worded censure to punish Clinton for trying to cover up his affair with Monica Lewinsky, perhaps adding a fine and admission of perjury. Veteran Democratic Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan of New York, is leading what he described as a "bipartisan" drafting effort. But Republicans insist on trying Clinton on the perjury and obstruction of justice charges passed along party lines by the House. Chief Justice William Rehnquist would preside; senators would act as the jury. Several senators on Sunday suggested that any trial should conclude by March, the traditional starting time for the full Senate's legislative work. "There's no reason for a long trial here. He deserves a speedy trial just like any other citizen," Sen. John Ashcroft (R-Missouri) said on ABC. What the Senate will consider, and how much of the graphic sexual evidence will be reviewed in public, is still the subject of fierce debate. DeLay: Examine sealed Arkansas materialHouse Majority Whip Tom DeLay (R-Texas) a leading proponent of impeachment, suggested the Senate examine evidence never released publicly. A senior House GOP official, who demanded anonymity, has said DeLay is referring primarily to the conflicting accounts of a woman who accused Clinton of making an unwanted sexual advance toward her while he was Arkansas attorney general. Several undecided House Republicans reviewed that sealed evidence in the days before the House impeached Clinton along party lines. Rep. Bob Franks (R-New Jersey) said Sunday the sealed evidence wouldn't change the facts of the trial. But the material threatens to further embarrass the Clintons and might give the president motivation to cooperate with efforts to bring the matter to a close, Franks said on ABC's "This Week." Lame duck challenge disapprovedDaschle said he opposed any White House challenge of the legitimacy of the House impeachment vote because it came from a lame duck Congress. "I think it would be a big mistake," said Daschle. "First of all, it would delay the process. Secondly, I think it might politicize the environment. And third, I don't think it would succeed." As for what Clinton would be censured for, he said that should be left up to the Senate. Daschle said any censure motion would have to be bipartisan. "That's the only way we can resolve this matter." CNN's Candy Crowley and the Associated Press contributed to this report. |
|
| ||||||||||||||||||||
MORE STORIES:Monday, December 28, 1998 | ||||||||||||||||||||||
