Prosecution to State Case to 'Unpredictable' Senate

By JANET HOOK

Jan. 14, 1999 12 AM PT

TIMES STAFF WRITER

WASHINGTON —

While all 100 members of the U.S. Senate have taken a solemn oath to be impartial in the impeachment trial of President Clinton, a remarkable number of them seem to have made up their minds already and most are convinced that they know how the case will turn out. Clinton, the bipartisan consensus holds, is here to stay.

But this sense of inevitability is tempered by the native fickleness of the Senate, a fiercely individualistic institution. Already, senators have been playing out of character on the impeachment stage.

Some moderate Republicans, thought to want the case to reach its final act quickly, have called for witnesses. A senior Democratic senator said that he might vote for conviction. An agreement on trial process was forged by one of the chamber’s most conservative Republicans and one of its most liberal Democrats.

“You have absolutely, positively no idea where this thing is going to wind up,” insisted Michael Scanlon, spokesman for the House’s chief impeachment advocate, Majority Whip Tom DeLay (R-Texas). “The conventional wisdom was going [against impeachment] in the House but it didn’t turn out that way.”

Prosecutors Set to Begin Case

The effort to change minds and upset the conventional wisdom about the Senate begins in earnest today, when House prosecutors begin making their case for removing Clinton from office. Those oral statements will turn the Senate’s attention abruptly from weeks of mind-numbing discussions about procedural arcana to the cold, hard facts of the case.

But the “jurors,” like the rest of Monica-weary America, have heard it all before. And for weeks, if not months, most senators have been freely discussing their views--with the media, their fellow jurors, their constituents. Based on these comments, some analysts believe that protestations of objectivity are simply a pretense.

“It’s safe to say almost all of the senators’ minds are already made up,” said J. Austin Ranney, a political scientist at UC Berkeley. “There aren’t more than four or five in each party who are really saying: ‘Let me hear the evidence.’ ”

It’s almost enough to drain the entire momentous proceeding of all suspense--except for the fact that no aspect of this impeachment drama has ever gone according to script. In the House, Republicans’ aggressive strategy defied post-election predictions. Moderate Republicans opposed to impeachment did abrupt about-faces. From out of nowhere, the speaker of the House resigned.

Still, in the Senate impeachment advocates acknowledge that they face an uphill fight. It takes two-thirds of the Senate--67 votes--to remove the president. With the Senate made up of 55 Republicans and 45 Democrats, conviction would require significant Democratic defections. Some Democrats are already going so far as to predict that there will not be a single member of their party voting to remove Clinton from office.

“It would take an extraordinary movement in their perceptions for any Democrat to vote for conviction,” said Sen. Robert Torricelli (D-N.J.), who has argued that the House has not identified any impeachable offenses. “The trial is a relatively simple thing. We simply sit waiting for the motion to dismiss.”

Support Voiced for President

Torricelli is not the only one whose mind seems all but made up. Sen. Tom Harkin (D-Iowa) has called the case against Clinton “a pile of dung.” Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) has said that the House never should have impeached Clinton in the first place. Freshman Sen. Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.) voted against impeachment in December, when he was still a House member. Sen. Paul Wellstone (D-Minn.) has pronounced Clinton’s behavior wrong but not impeachable.

“As far as we know, there are no cracks” in Democratic unity on opposing conviction, said Ranit Schmelzer, spokeswoman for Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle (D-S.D.).

But if House prosecutors are allowed to introduce new witnesses or evidence and some new bombshell is dropped, there is a small cadre of influential Democrats that the White House will be watching nervously. Sen. Robert C. Byrd (D-W.Va.), a respected senior member, has said that, based on the evidence so far, his vote on conviction could go either way. He has criticized Clinton harshly for conducting a Democratic “pep rally” after the House impeachment vote and has sternly warned the White House against trying to lobby the Senate on impeachment.

Sens. Daniel Patrick Moynihan (D-N.Y.) and Bob Kerrey (D-Neb.) have never been big fans of Clinton and joined Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman (D-Conn.) in breaking ranks to criticize the president’s behavior last fall. And if new shoes drop, political pressure may increase on Southern Democrats such as Charles S. Robb (D-Va.), who is up for reelection in 2000, or Bob Graham (D-Fla.), a Democratic leadership aide said.

“I don’t think the White House can necessarily count on all of the votes in the caucus,” the aide said. “There are definitely some who are going to listen to the case on its merits.”

Still, some Republicans have accused Senate Democrats of rushing to acquittal in violation of their oath as jurors.

With dozens of senators now routinely discussing the trial on television, newly elected Sen. Peter Fitzgerald (R-Ill.) said that he has received a dozen e-mail messages from constituents questioning the Senate’s impartiality.

Sen. Bob Smith (R-N.H.) also fumed. “I’ve heard a very, very respected senator stand up and say we don’t have 67 votes [to oust Clinton],” he said. “I don’t know if there are 67 votes. I hope I don’t know.”

Republicans generally have been more restrained about tipping their hand. Although several have called on Clinton to resign, none has yet publicly said that they would vote to remove him.

That restraint is not just good jury ethics, it is also good politics for the GOP. Republicans are “bending over backwards,” one senator said, to avoid fueling the view of the trial as a partisan witch hunt.

But some acknowledge that it strains credulity to think that any senator is free of preconceived opinions.

“Every senator goes into this with a clear understanding of what is involved that would be totally inappropriate in a regular jury,” said Sen. Robert F. Bennett (R-Utah).

There are some wild cards in the GOP pack. Clinton allies hope to win support from moderates such as James M. Jeffords (R-Vt.), who long ago told local reporters he did not think the president’s behavior was impeachable. But other moderates--Susan Collins of Maine and John H. Chafee of Rhode Island--have defied expectations by calling for witnesses.

Other possible impeachment opponents include some of the Senate’s old guard--powerful committee chairmen such as Ted Stevens (R-Alaska) and Pete V. Domenici (R-N.M.)--who want to get on with legislation and have shown no great enthusiasm for this proceeding.

“He’s a reluctant juror,” said an aide to Domenici, who heads the Budget Committee. “He looks forward to the day when he can focus on the budget.”

For many Republicans, House prosecutors still need to make the case that the charges against Clinton amount to impeachable offenses.

“It would not take much to convince me he’s committed a felony,” said Bennett. “They’re going to have to convince me that felony is sufficient to demonstrate he lacks the requisite character to remain in office.”

Conservative Sen. Phil Gramm (R-Texas) reminded everyone how unpredictable the Senate can be when he found common ground last week with liberal Sen. Edward M. Kennedy (D-Mass.) in mapping out how the trial should proceed. Still, a Kennedy aide predicted, that spirit of bipartisanship will collapse when the Senate renders its final verdict.

(BEGIN TEXT OF INFOBOX / INFOGRAPHIC)

Their Roles in Presenting Case

Beginning today, the House managers will have 24 hours, spread over several days, to present their case for President Clinton’s removal. The GOP team has organized the presentation this way:

OPENING STATEMENTS

Henry J. Hyde (Ill.)

F. James Sensenbrenner (Wis.)

Asa Hutchinson (Ark.)

James E. Rogan (Glendale)

Ed Bryant (Tenn.)

****

SUMMARY OF EVIDENCE

Bill McCollum (Fla.)

****

DISCUSSION OF PERJURY AND OBSTRUCTION-OF-JUSTICE CHARGES

Bob Barr (Ga.)