Democrats' unity
shows evidence of
weakening
By Sean Scully
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
The first major cracks appeared yesterday in what had
seemed a united Democratic front on impeachment, with
three senators leaving open the possibility they would vote to
remove the president.
"I could go either way based on the evidence as I've seen it
or heard it," Sen. Robert C. Byrd, West Virginia Democrat,
told C-SPAN.
Sen. Bob Kerrey, a Nebraska Democrat who has been
harshly critical of Mr. Clinton, told reporters that he "could
vote for removal," but would prefer the Senate consider a
censure motion criticizing the president.
He quickly added that he does not now believe that the
charges against the president warrant removing him from office.
Another critic of the president, Sen. Bob Graham, Florida
Democrat, hinted he might vote against Mr. Clinton.
Despite Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle's assertion
that Democrats are "unanimous" in opposition to calling
witnesses, Mr. Graham told Scripps Howard News Service
that he would like a thorough trial of the president -- possibly
including witnesses -- so he can weigh the charges against him
of perjury and obstruction of justice.
"Impeachable offenses require there to be an abuse of the
institution of government," Mr. Graham said.
-- Continued from Front Page --
"To me, it is in the area of obstruction of justice that gets
closest to that definition."
Mr. Byrd also differed from his colleagues in harshly
attacking the president's handling of the impeachment so far.
Other Democrats have criticized the president's behavior
during the scandal but have been silent on his actions since
being impeached.
Mr. Byrd said yesterday that the president's behavior has
been tinged with "arrogance."
Holding a public rally outside the Oval Office with House
Democrats just hours after being impeached "was an egregious
display of shameless arrogance the like of which I don't think I
have seen," Mr. Byrd said.
Other Democrats have said they are keeping an open mind
about the trial, but few have shown any sign they might vote to
remove the president. Twelve Democrats would need to join
all 55 Republicans in voting to remove the president to reach
the two-thirds majority required by the Constitution.
Senators of both parties met formally for the first time
yesterday to discuss how to conduct the first presidential
impeachment trial in 131 years. Democratic senators emerged
from yesterday's meeting disagreeing over the length of a trial,
whether to call witnesses, and whether key debates should be
held in secret.
Until yesterday, Democrats had proclaimed unity behind a
plan for a severely shortened trial -- as little as two days to
hear evidence.
But as Democrats returned to town, it was clear there was
not universal support for the plan. Republicans haven't been
happy with the idea since it was first floated last week, and
senators from both sides say the plan is in serious trouble.
"When I heard this thing about one day for each side, I was
skeptical," said Sen. Russell D. Feingold, Wisconsin Democrat.
"I don't want at the end of this for it to be suggested --today
or 100 years from now ... -- that either party's rights were not
respected," he said.
Mr. Byrd, the Senate's reigning parliamentary expert, said
the shortened trial plan is unacceptable.
"I don't think a week is enough," he told NBC. "It seems to
me that this could be done within three weeks or four."
The Democrats' disagreement over whether to call
witnesses was not as wide as the split on the issue in GOP
ranks.
"I do not support witnesses being called on the basis that
we have 60,000 pages of evidence already," said Sen. Mary L.
Landrieu, Louisiana Democrat.
Other Democrats, however, said they would be willing to
hear from witnesses if the House "managers," who will act as
prosecutors, or the White House attorneys insist.
Sen. Ron Wyden, Oregon Democrat, for example, said he
thinks the case for calling witnesses is "weak" but he would not
object as long as the two sides aren't given unlimited time to
present their cases.
Sen. Patrick J. Leahy, Vermont Democrat, likewise said he
might agree to hear witnesses, provided they relate directly to
the case.
The two sides "cannot bring in witnesses now that go
beyond the record that brought about impeachment in the first
place. ... We don't have somebody suddenly show up on the
steps of the U.S. Senate this afternoon and say, 'Oh, wait, stop
everything, I've got new information,'" he said.
Perhaps the most extensive disagreement among Democrats
is the question of whether to close any of the Senate
proceedings. Senate rules and precedents call for the final
debate to be conducted in secret; some senators of both
parties have suggested the witnesses could testify in secret to
protect their privacy.
Many Democrats emerged from yesterday's meeting saying
the secrecy rule should be changed, because a closed-door
debate could breed public cynicism.
"The American people should hear every word the senators
say," Mr. Leahy said.
"Usually sunshine is the policy," said Sen. Daniel K. Inouye,
Hawaii Democrat.
Mr. Kerrey said the debate should be open to the public,
but he could foresee some circumstances in which the Senate
might have to retire behind closed doors.
The Senate might, for example, need a degree of privacy to
hash out some complex procedural tangle, he said, which could
easily arise given the delicate and unusual nature of a
presidential impeachment.
But Mrs. Landrieu said she sees no reason to change the
rules on closed debates.
"I think the rules are in good shape," she said. "They have
been well-debated over the course of this century. They're well
thought out."
washtimes.com |
