Partisan Cracks Widen Under Weight of Trial

After two long weeks of trial proceedings, the Senate is right back where it started: unwilling to remove President Clinton from office but uncertain how to bring the impeachment juggernaut to a dignified end--and dividing on sharp partisan lines.

If the only question were a verdict--conviction or acquittal--the task would be easy: The prosecution camp is still far short of the 67 votes required to convict and getting no closer.

Among most senators, Republican and Democratic, a rough private consensus exists on the merits of this case: Clinton appears guilty of at least some of the charges against him, but his offenses don’t necessarily warrant removal from the White House. “Impeachability is what I’m struggling with,” said Sen. Ted Stevens (R-Alaska), a crusty conservative patriarch. “We’re all still struggling with it.”

But in this unusual trial, battles over procedure have been more important than arguments over facts or debates on the meaning of the Constitution.

The center of most senators’ attention has been the search for an endgame, a dignified process that will reach an acceptable conclusion in a reasonable amount of time. And on Saturday, that search came up short.

For several days, the Senate’s legislative giants tossed out options from dismissal (West Virginia Democrat Robert C. Byrd) and adjournment (Utah Republican Orrin G. Hatch) to some kind of brokered verdict (Connecticut Democrat Joseph I. Lieberman), but none took hold.

Instead, the fever of partisanship, briefly suppressed during the Senate’s days of enforced silence, burst forth--first implicitly, in the pingpong match of questions from each side, then explicitly, in a suddenly bitter squabble over the next steps in the process.

The likely result: an ugly battle along party lines, a series of arguments over witnesses, and at least several more weeks of trial for the Senate.

Few senators were willing to predict how long the process will take. But Sen. Bob Graham (D-Fla.), a key swing Democrat, said he has bet--in his office pool--on the trial lasting until March 15.

Without intending to, the Senate may be providing a lesson in what political scientists call “path dependency”: Once a process has begun, stopping it is more difficult than it looks.

In the Senate’s rule-dominated tradition, where most procedures require unanimous consent, it always appeared unlikely that a way could be found to short-circuit a lengthy trial; any one senator could block an attempt to end the proceeding.

And the Jan. 8 agreement struck by Republican leader Trent Lott (R-Miss.) and Democratic leader Tom Daschle (D-S.D.) foresaw that the GOP prosecutors from the House could call witnesses as long as they maintained the support of at least 51 senators, and 55 are Republicans.

But the senators had been volubly proud of their success in maintaining at least a veneer of bipartisanship. So the Republicans’ actions Saturday, which amounted to asserting majority control of the process without the consent of the Democrats, came as a surprise.

First, the House managers secretly contacted independent counsel Kenneth W. Starr to arrange an unannounced interview with Monica S. Lewinsky, the former White House intern whose affair with Clinton led to his impeachment.

Then, after a Republicans-only caucus before Saturday’s trial session, Lott angered many Democrats by saying he wants to cut out the Senate’s debates on this week’s crucial motions to dismiss the case and call witnesses.

Finally, in response to requests from several GOP senators, Lott announced that the Republican caucus was working on another surprise gambit: a list of written questions to submit to Clinton.

The actions indicated that Lott has decided not only that the contradictions among witnesses in the Clinton case deserve a fuller airing but that they also do not mind risking criticism for prolonging the trial.

Democrats lost no time in accusing the GOP leaders of torpedoing bipartisanship--and in blaming them for continuing the impeachment process despite the desire of much of the public to move on.

Sen. John F. Kerry (D-Mass.) said the Senate Republican leaders had now joined the House Republicans as prosecutors rather than impartial judges.

And Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), a moderate Democrat rarely given to partisan rhetoric, accused the House managers of “fanaticism” in pursuing Lewinsky and other witnesses.

In effect, the Democrats, many of whom dislike and distrust Clinton, have been united by the ferocity of the House managers--and now, the assertion of control by the Senate GOP leaders.

At the same time, Republicans closed ranks behind their leaders, who appealed for discipline in the week’s procedural votes lest Democrats exploit their differences. On Saturday, several Republican senators who had expressed qualms about calling witnesses said they would vote with their leadership on the issue.

Republicans still disagree over whether they need to hear from witnesses to make up their minds. But most GOP senators appear to agree on the politics of the matter: Failing to call witnesses would be a slap in the face of the House Republicans who brought impeachment forward--and would be difficult to explain to grass-roots conservatives who want to see the case against Clinton pursued as vigorously as possible.

“We need to give great deference to both sides to present their case as they see fit,” said Sen. Rick Santorum (R-Pa.), who had been on the fence.

In the end, Republicans coalesced around two basic ideas: Allow the House managers to present their case as fully as they want and follow the trial process through all its stages to a final debate and vote.

“I don’t want any shortchanging option,” said Sen. Rod Grams (R-Minn.). “Let’s keep it going and do it right.”

Amid all the wrangling over procedure, senators said the hours of questions and answers they sat through for two days seemed something of a sideshow. Still, improbably, one question from a pair of backbench Democrats did get to the heart of the matter--and elicited an unusual degree of agreement between the prosecution and defense.

Sens. Herbert Kohl (D-Wis.) and John Edwards (D-N.C.) asked: “Even if the president engaged in the alleged conduct, can reasonable people disagree with the conclusion that, as a matter of law, he must be convicted and removed from office?”

Replying for the House, Rep. Lindsey O. Graham (R-S.C.) surprised some in the chamber with his answer: “Absolutely. . . . I would be the first to admit that the Constitution is silent on this question about whether or not every high crime has to result in removal. And if I was sitting where you’re at, I would probably get down on my knees before I made that decision, because the impact on society is going to be real either way.”

White House Counsel Charles F.C. Ruff couldn’t resist endorsing his opponent’s point. “This is something I won’t have an opportunity to say very often, but I believe that Mr. Manager Graham has, in fact, stated for you the essence” of the issue, Ruff said.

“Not only can reasonable people differ on the facts, but reasonable people may differ on the outcome,” Ruff said, adding that this should lead senators to hesitate before voting to remove the president from office.