Parties Looking to Other Ways to Say the President Did Wrong nytimes.com
First, the biased liberal press lead sentence:
With the prospects of President Clinton's removal from office all but gone, Senate Democrats and Republicans on Thursday began arguing about how to say that he still did something wrong.
Hope springs eternal here, of course. Who knows what Drudge will claim next? On the "finding of facts" issue, there seems to be some difference of opinion, from unlikely sources.
However they resolve this argument, most senators seem intent on seeing the trial through to the end, with a vote on the articles of impeachment, although Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, has talked of offering a motion to end the trial by adjourning it without a verdict.
And in the end, neither resolution may ever reach the floor. Republicans scorn censure as a meaningless political ploy. Democrats fault "findings of fact" as unconstitutional.
"Censure is for politicians," said Sen. Phil Gramm, R-Texas. "Censure is to give political cover."
"If the president is found not guilty, the president is found not guilty," Gramm added. "They want it both ways. The art of politics, I know, is the art of having it both ways. But with this thing, you can't have it both ways."
He doesn't mention the "fact finding", of course, and I'm sure Gramm could find a way to have it both ways if he really wanted to. More directly:
Earlier this week, Sen. Trent Lott, the majority leader, appointed a six-person task force to examine the "finding of facts" idea. The proposal would ask the Senate to "find" that the facts in the case, as presented to them by House managers, are true, namely that Clinton lied under oath and obstructed justice. Most Republicans say the proposal has piqued their curiosity.
But the idea, which is being spearheaded by Sen. Olympia Snowe, R-Maine, and Sen. Pete Domenici, R-N.M., faces a series of obstacles. On Thursday, it became a topic of contention as both sides tried to reach agreement on trial procedures. Republicans left open the door for a "finding of facts" resolution, something Democrats opposed.
Democrats are already dubbing the proposal, which is tougher than censure, "a third article of impeachment," and remain almost unanimously opposed to the idea. The White House, too, finds it altogether objectionable.
"Yesterday I read that the findings were going to include 'offenses,' that was the word of the sponsor," said Sen. Carl Levin, D-Mich. "It seems to me that just complicates and confuses an impeachment process."
Even some Republicans appeared lukewarm, if not outright opposed, to the idea. They say they have serious reservations about its constitutionality. "The Constitution doesn't say anything about a bifurcated finding, in other words -- finding somebody guilty and then not ousting them," said Sen. Richard Shelby, R-Ala. "Basically, if you find that he did all these things under the impeachment law, you ought to vote aye for conviction. If you are doubtful about the burden of proof, or whether these are impeachment offense, you ought to vote no."
Anyway, I still have no idea what a "finding of fact" by a simple majority in the Senate would mean. It's not passing a law, and I can't see where it would mean anything in court. But the Republicans control the rules, they can do what they want. |
