|
Clinton censure idea gaining support
Updated December 22, 1998
2:00 p.m. ET
WASHINGTON (Court TV) —As the president prepares for a Senate trial that could oust him from office, four House Republicans who voted for impeachment joined Democrats in urging the Senate to consider censure.
Reps. Sherwood Boehlert and Benjamin Gilman of New York, Mike Castle of Delaware and Jim Greenwood of Pennsylvania wrote Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott, R-Miss., urging a censure that "would impose a fine and block any pardon."
Sen. Chris Dodd, D-Conn., who sits on the Rules and Administration Committee, said Tuesday morning that a consensus was building for censure. He said it would be in the best interest of the country to resolve the impeachment charges quickly.
"There are not the votes to convict the president, to impeach him; there are the votes to censure the president. That seems to be a bipartisan consensus," said Dodd, who had come to the White House to discuss budget matters with administration officials. "If that is the case, then it seems to me that it's in the best interest of the Senate to move to that result, sooner rather than later."
Meanwhile the Senate's senior Democrat, Robert Byrd of West Virginia, who is an expert on Senate procedures, spoke of compromise while hinting that passage of a censure resolution could replace a trial. But he said senators from both parties — not White House lawyers — must decide how to proceed.
"Whether there is a trial or whether there is some other solution, that decision must be made by senators, and it must be bipartisan or it will have absolutely no credibility with the public," Byrd said in a statement. "There must be no deal involving the White House or any entity beyond the ... U.S. Senate."
White House spokesman Joe Lockhart went along with Byrd's assessment.
"He is right when he says this should be something the Senate should do," Lockhart said. "Once the Senate works its will, ... if it were some proposal short of impeachment we assume they would come to the White House and try to get our reaction or views on it."
Though leaving open the option of possible legal challenges to a trial, the White House is focusing in the short term on seeking a compromise resulting in censure, according to presidential aides and advisers.
Lott has said a trial would begin after the Senate returns Jan. 6, regardless of any censure talk. The Republican leader, who is in Mississippi for the holiday break, "is not open to the idea that they're going to derail the process prematurely," said his spokesman John Czwartacki. "His mindset is that he's in a juror mode." Senators serve as jurors in an impeachment trial and must have a two-thirds vote to remove a president.
Castle, R-Del., has been publicly advocating a censure, but House Republican leaders did not allow that alternative Saturday when Clinton was impeached for perjury and obstruction of justice in connection with efforts to conceal his affair with former White House intern Monica Lewinsky.
"We are not convinced and do not want our votes interpreted to mean that we view removal from office as the only reasonable conclusion of this case," the four Republican representatives wrote Lott.
"In considering this matter, the Senate should take into account the subject of the president's false testimony, the degree to which the issue relates to his official duties, the degree to which his conduct threatens the integrity and function of the government ... and the will of the American voter. We believe those factors may lead the Senate to conclude that a remedy short of removal is in order."
Ken Johnson, spokesman for Rep. Billy Tauzin, R-La., said the lawmaker had discussions with a half-dozen House colleagues who, like himself, voted for impeachment. Tauzin and the other lawmakers "believe it's time to put this behind us," Johnson said, adding: "The Senate is not likely to remove the president."
Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison, R-Texas, who sits on the Senate Rules Committee with Dodd, Byrd and Lott, said a trial would commence but "a lot of doors and a lot of options" would then open. "I think that at some point I think censure is going to be one of the options."
And Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, said censure was a possibility, but only if "there is some pretty clear indication from the Democrats that they're not going to ... possibly support conviction in the Senate."
The 106th Senate will have 55 Republican and 45 Democratic members. Advocates of conviction would have to muster 67 votes to oust the president. For the trial of Andrew Johnson, the only other president to be impeached, seven Republicans broke ranks and voted against removal, despite the highly partisan nature of that impeachment.
Meanwhile, the White House received warnings from Democrats about trying legal maneuvers that would challenge the legitimacy of the House's impeachment vote.
"I think anything that is seen as parliamentary maneuvering to get out of this is not going to be accepted by the American public," Sen. John Breaux of Louisiana said on CNN.
Sen. Byron Dorgan, D-N.D., said such a challenge would be a "terrible mistake."
Clinton's chief of staff, John Podesta, said over the weekend that the White House legal team would consider whether to claim that the impeachment resolution must be approved by the next House. The 105th House, which passed two articles of impeachment, had a Republican majority of 11 votes, while in the 106th, the majority dips to five.
Yale Law School Professor Bruce Ackerman testified Dec. 8 before the House Judiciary Committee that the 20th amendment prevented a lame duck House from passing an impeachment resolution. He argued that the newly elected House would have to vote to approve impeachment, or at the very least, vote for new managers to prosecute the president in the Senate.
Congressional officials, speaking on condition of anonymity, said Republicans are reviewing whether the new Congress will have to vote anew on the appointment of House managers to press the case for impeachment in the Senate.
Two former presidents, Republican Gerald Ford and Democrat Jimmy Carter, argued for censure in a New York Times op-ed piece Monday in which they suggested that Clinton publicly acknowledge lying under oath. Part of the deal would prevent a future prosecution of Clinton.
Court TV's Aldina Vazao Kennedy and The Associated Press contributed to this report.
| 
Full Coverage