A Senate Trial: What if? by DOUGLAS BARRICKLOW December 10, 1998 DALLAS, TX Conventional wisdom is an interesting beast. Too often, it is left to the eye of the beholder. Most often, it is entrusted to the holder of the microphone. And least often, it is based in reality. Today, if there is one nugget of conventional wisdom on which you would think you could bet the farm, it is that the Senate will never vote to remove the president from office. The more I consider it, though, the more I wonder where the basis for this commonly held belief can be found. The most obvious explanation for the wide consensus on the ultimate fate of the impeachment process is, of course, the current political make-up of the U.S. Senate -- 55 Republicans, 45 Democrats. For the president to be removed from office, a minimum of twelve Democrats would have to vote against the president. It would take an even greater number if any of the Senate's Republicans were to choose to vote against removal. To be sure, especially given the partisan environment in D.C., there have been far more fragile grounds on which conventional wisdom has been based during this saga.

EXPLORE CST... Bad Poetry -- submissions welcome Toonage -- cyber toons Ask Jay Crew... -- an advice column Coffee Talk -- complete CST archive Total Linkage!!! -- perfect newsie homepage E-mail CST -- comments, complaints?     .

But it should be noted that when you turn to the source, that is, the members of the Senate, you don't find too many commitments on impeachment. During the Dec. 6 broadcast of CNN's "Late Edition", Senator Joe Lieberman [D-Conn.] said that the impeachment issue, if forwarded to the Senate, would certainly be "an open question." Lieberman also pointed out that, though it is unlikely that 67 votes would be cast for removal in the Senate, everyone should keep in mind that "no member of the Senate has indicated how he or she would vote." Senator Orrin Hatch [R-Utah], also appearing on "Late Edition", echoed that opinion and went on to say that he has spoken with a "leading" Senate Democrat who, after hearing Hatch say that he wasn't aware of any Democrat who would vote for impeachment in the Senate, offered this twist: "Don't be so sure, Orrin." It's these sorts of comments, being made by actual Senators, that fly in the face of the aforementioned conventional wisdom inside the Beltway. If the Senators themselves haven't made up their minds, then it's time to dismiss the argument that censure should be pursued in the House simply because any article of impeachment will certainly die in the Senate. Another concern for the president, if this matter were to end up in the Senate, is whether a bit of behind-the-scenes maneuvering from early October might negatively influence his standing with a Senate jury. According to Salon Magazine, the president was the initiator of an effort to gather 34 Senate Democrats who would then attempt to short-circuit the impeachment process by declaring their steadfast opposition to his conviction in the Senate. When President Clinton bounced this idea off of Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle [D-S.D.], the senator advised against it. And to make matters worse for the White House, Senator Robert Byrd [D-W.V.] subsequently lashed out at the president saying, "Don't tamper with this jury... don't let it be said that we allowed ourselves to be tampered with, no matter who attempts the tampering." The president had hoped, I suppose, that Senate Democrats would rally to their party's senior elected official. Instead, they rallied to the Constitution. The president can only hope that, if this thing goes to trial, most Senators will overlook his poor decision to meddle with matters that are constitutionally left to the Legislative Branch. In a recent NY Times op-ed piece, former Nixon counsel Leonard Garment provided a relevant observation on the impeachment process. Garment suggested that if the ghost of President Nixon were to appear before him today, the ghost might offer this analysis of Clinton's present predicament: "Remember those long, quiet stretches during Watergate, Len, when we were sure the worst was over and that we were going to survive? ...Then another shoe would fall -- taxes, tapes -- and we'd sink a little lower. The scandal centipede has 101 feet. The case is never closed." And as long as the Senate continues to guard its independence in this process, it's impossible to predict to what end a Senate trial might lead. We can be sure of a few things, though. A Senate trial would provide a forum for the cross-examination of the key players in this case. I don't pretend to know how each witness might respond to cross-examination, but I strongly believe the public would benefit from such an exercise. One should also remember that a Senate trial would very likely include testimony from Bruce Lindsey and Sidney Blumenthal -- testimony delivered, for the first time, without claims of executive privilege. If Lindsey and Blumenthal are ever sworn in before the Senate, of which Watergate figure will the public be most reminded -- John W. Dean or G. Gordon Liddy? At best, time may tell. The House of Representatives is in control at the moment, and, in case you haven't been paying close attention, the events of next week will determine the relevance or mootness of everything mentioned above. Stay tuned...

Send your comments to Coffee Shop Times editor Douglas Barricklow.