Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Clinton's Scandals: Is this corruption the worst ever? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: MulhollandDrive who wrote (9545)	12/18/1998 10:59:00 AM
From: Les H	Respond to of 13994

Clinton fate may rest in Senate December 17, 1998 BY ROBERT NOVAK SUN-TIMES COLUMNIST If the House eventually votes to impeach William Jefferson Clinton, the last good chance to save his presidency may come early next year when the 106th Congress convenes. The Senate must respond then to the House action by considering a resolution that would issue a summons to the president. By a bare majority vote, the Senate could reject that resolution--in effect a summary judgment throwing the case out of court. That would terminate the procedure, averting a trial guaranteed to fascinate and repel Americans. But it will be an uphill fight to defeat such a resolution, an effort not even assured of full support from the Senate's Democratic minority. Senior administration officials say the Senate trial that would follow the resolution's passage is unthinkable. Instead, Clinton may be ushered out of power before the trial starts. Voluntary resignation by Clinton is considered out of the question by everybody in Washington. But to avoid the spectacle of Chief Justice William Rehnquist swearing in Monica Lewinsky, prestigious Democratic senators may approach the president and persuade him--for the sake of party and country--to step down. The arcane impeachment procedure for the Senate, unfamiliar to all the players (including senators), was spelled out in a still-confidential 26-page memorandum prepared by the office of Senate Legal Counsel Thomas Griffith. Completed Oct. 7, when it seemed unlikely that the House would pass impeachment, the document cites precedents to claim the extraordinary powers of the senators-cum-judges. The Griffith memorandum's critical statement asserts that the Senate, after receiving articles from the House, ''issues a writ of summons to the accused, reciting the articles and advising him to appear before the chamber at a set date and time to file his answer''--in person or through his counsel. The resolution containing the summons ''also sets forth a schedule governing both the date by which the accused shall answer and the date to which the House shall file its reply.'' Presumably, if this resolution fails to pass, there will be no trial. The memo lays out the opportunity for the president's lawyers, before any evidence is presented, to ask the Senate ''to dismiss particular articles''--or, presumably, all articles--''as failing to state an impeachable offense.'' These procedures are viewed as the last chance by worried administration officials who talked to me. With Republicans in the Senate majority by 55-45, however, getting enough votes to either defeat the resolution or dismiss charges will be difficult. Moreover, such independent-minded Democrats as Robert Byrd, Daniel Patrick Moynihan and Joseph Lieberman may not be willing to terminate the impeachment process peremptorily. Failure to stop the trial before it begins will initiate a laborious course, according to the Griffith memorandum. The 1868 proceedings against President Andrew Johnson lasted more than a month, with sessions running four or five hours a day, six days a week. And the senators, though barred from speaking, will have more power than petit jurors. The document says the Senate can ''compel attendance of witnesses'' and issue contempt citations. It continues, ''The Senate may also adopt a resolution authorizing the Senate legal counsel to bring a civil action in the U.S. District Court for the enforcement of a Senate subpoena against a recalcitrant witness.'' Similarly, the Senate can seek a court order ''immunizing a witness' testimony or document production'' when the Fifth Amendment is cited. The Senate is not likely to follow the party-line voting of the House Judiciary Committee. Senators of both parties like to seem judicious, promising a prolonged ordeal. ''I want to hear what the evidence is and then make up my mind,'' Democratic Sen. Bob Kerrey of Nebraska told me. That Kerrey, no longer a presidential possibility and no longer Senate Democratic campaign chairman, could end up voting for conviction is within reality. Bob Dole's gratuitous effort to avoid this would rewrite the Constitution's impeachment clause with a tortuous plan resulting in censure. ''I started reading Dole's solution feeling good and ended up feeling depressed,'' a high Clinton official told me. Since Republican leaders abhor Dole's approach, Democrats are down to finding 51 senators next month who will vote to block a Senate trial.