Brief Show of Bipartisanship May Signal That End Is Near

At long last, is the end in sight? Sure looks like it.

The Senate on Thursday said “Enough!” And for the first time in the yearlong saga that culminated in President Clinton’s impeachment trial, the brakes were put on a process that at every other stage has careened farther than anyone ever imagined.

Also, after months of partisan bickering, the lopsided vote against live testimony represented the first substantive decision in the entire impeachment process that was truly bipartisan.

In short: The Senate is now galloping toward a final impeachment vote--as early as next Thursday--with the quickening enthusiasm of a horse that catches sight of the barn.

Politicians, being politicians, surely still will stumble and squabble on their way to the exit--most seriously over whether to censure Clinton after, as is universally anticipated, he is acquitted of the impeachment charges. And everyone is cautious about predicting the end of a national journey that has had more false summits than the Himalayas.

‘Tone Is Different,’ Schumer Says

Still, even veterans of last year’s House impeachment debate, with its unexpected twists and turns and seemingly unstoppable momentum, are seeing light at the end of the tunnel.

“The whole tone is different,” said Sen. Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.), who was a House member during the impeachment debate. “There’s a feeling on both sides of the aisle: Let’s finish this up.”

Now, the main unanswered question is on what note this tormented proceeding will end: A dissonant, divisive one that is as partisan as the process has been all along or a harmonious, cooperative one that validates the Senate trial as fair and dignified?

The answer to that question will hinge on whether Republicans and Democrats find a way to come together on a censure resolution or some other measure to condemn Clinton without removing him from office.

Some fear that even with the now-expected end of the trial next week, a debate over censure, which so far has been relentlessly partisan, will prolong the agony of the Clinton scandal.

“I don’t think this is going to go away if we’re going to go right into censure,” said Sen. Ted Stevens (R-Alaska). “We’re going to be dealing with this for another few weeks.”

But probably no one is more eager to avoid that than Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott (R-Miss.), who has seen his party become almost exclusively identified with the politically unpopular cause of impeachment

“It’s time that we get to a vote and that we move on,” said Lott, who was encouraged by Thursday’s developments. “It was a critical day and guarantees we are moving to the final phase of the impeachment trial. Barring some dramatic interruption, we will be through [next] Thursday or not later than Friday.”

Lott previously had set Feb. 12 as his target date for ending the trial. As Thursday dawned, two major obstacles threatened to drag out the case: the prospect of live testimony in the Senate and Democratic filibuster threats. By day’s end, both had evaporated.

The first obstacle was the demand by some House Republicans that the Senate hear live testimony from Lewinsky--another step that could have added days to the trial and introduced a sensational wild-card element of uncertainty. But the Senate rejected that demand by an overwhelming 70-30 vote, with 25 Republicans crossing party lines to vote with all 45 Democrats.

Until this vote, the impeachment process seemed to have assumed a life of its own that stymied fledgling efforts to pull the plug in the House Judiciary Committee, the full House and the Senate. Senate Republicans, for their part, had proceeded full steam ahead, in part to accommodate the demands of their House counterparts, who warned against undercutting the legitimacy of the entire impeachment process by short-circuiting it.

But by Thursday, senators had sat through a month of trial proceedings, examined thousands of pages of evidence and watched their party’s poll ratings continue to plummet. Many (though not all) also had sat through hours of videotapes of the witness depositions taken earlier this week. Senate Republicans were ready to wrap things up.

“Enough’s enough!” said Sen. John H. Chafee (R-R.I.), a moderate who had voted last week to approve witness depositions but was among those who opposed calling Lewinsky to testify live.

“At some point you’ve got to call it to an end,” said Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.), a conservative who also voted against live testimony.

The issue forced senators for the first time to choose between expanding the trial record, which may have included more salacious details, and preserving their chamber’s dignity and decorum. Few observers of the tradition-bound Senate were surprised when decorum won.

“There was always the chance that [calling Lewinsky live] would create a spectacle in the Senate,” said Sen. Richard C. Shelby (R-Ala.). “I didn’t want to do that.”

The second potential obstacle to the trial’s impending conclusion loomed when Democrats threatened to use filibuster-like delaying tactics if Republicans followed through on plans to offer a “finding of fact” resolution that would have declared the case against Clinton proved, without removing him from office.

Republicans had been toying with the idea as a way to make it harder for Clinton to declare victory after an acquittal vote. They also hoped that it would attract some support from Democrats, putting a bipartisan gloss on the trial’s end.

Instead, Democrats came out swinging against the “finding of fact” idea, threatening to offer unlimited amendments to stall its passage. Thus, Republicans faced the prospect of having to pursue the idea on a purely partisan basis--and risking further postponement of the day when the trial would become history. Republicans punted.

“We don’t want to be part of another partisan fight,” said Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine), one of the leading advocates of the “finding of fact” plan.

GOP Seen as Reluctant to Remove Clinton

Several Republicans also had reservations about the approach. But the high level of GOP interest in the idea may provide a window to the final vote on articles of impeachment: It was an indication of significant Republican reluctance to vote to remove Clinton.

One GOP strategist predicted that as many as 15 Republicans might vote against conviction--so many that one or both of the impeachment articles may fail to win a majority, let alone the two-thirds vote needed to remove Clinton.

Against that backdrop, the looming question now is whether any significant number of Republicans will support the censure resolution that Democrats want to bring up after the trial to express their disapproval of Clinton’s behavior.