All agree too few votes to convict
BY DAVID E. ROSENBAUM
The New York Times
WASHINGTON — As they plunge into the uncharted waters of the impeachment trial of a modern president, senators are uncertain about what lies ahead.
Some think they are in for a long ordeal on the Senate floor that could last until next summer or even longer.
Others think that President Clinton and the Senate will quickly cut a deal in January and short-circuit a trial before it gets started in earnest.
Still others expect something in between — a procedure short of a full trial, that lasts for some weeks but may then be shelved.
But all the senators and staff experts interviewed last week agreed on an essential point: Unless unanticipated, damaging new evidence against the president arises, the Senate will never muster the two-thirds majority necessary to convict him and remove him from office.
“There is no question that there are not 67 votes against him,” said Sen. Phil Gramm of Texas, one of the president's most ardent Republican opponents but also a senator who usually has a sure sense of where his colleagues stand.
Can be stopped
Another point to remember is that although it takes a two-thirds majority to remove a president from office, a trial can be stopped before it begins or at any time after it starts by a simple majority vote of the senators. The Senate will have 55 Republicans and 45 Democrats.
The fact is that no one knows what may develop. There is no reference book that spells out what an impeachment trial in 1999 would look like. There is no staff expert who has mastered all the legal and political nuances.
Sen. Trent Lott, the Republican leader, insists that he has made no plans for how the Senate will proceed. He has said he did not want to appear presumptuous while the matter was before the House.
Mr. Lott does not plan to call the Senate back into session this year. He leaves no doubt that he expects an impeachment trial next year, but he is not sure when it will begin or how long it will last.
Mr. Lott hinted in an interview on CNN last week that after the trial began, the Senate might decide to pull the plug on it. “There are a number of votes on procedures that may be demanded along the way,” he said, “and we'll have to work the will of the Senate.”
"In a prompt manner'
Mr. Clinton said Saturday that he hoped that “there will be a constitutional and fair means of resolving this matter in a prompt manner” in the Senate.
Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, is one who thinks that is the most likely outcome. He explained: “If I were the president, I would want to get this thing over with as soon as you can. He knows there are not 67 votes there. I don't know anybody who would argue there's a chance to have 67 votes at this point. But who knows what else might come up if he got into a trial?”
Mr. Gramm agreed with that assessment. “Why would he want to have an extended trial?” Mr. Gramm asked. “From his point of view, this is all about damage control.”
Sen. Frank Lautenberg, D-N.J., said he thought that script was unlikely. “I think it goes nine innings, meaning we have a long, drawn-out process,” he said. Many other Democrats and some Republicans agreed.
Taking the middle ground, Sen. Robert Bennett, R-Utah, said he expected the Senate to begin operating on two tracks, dealing with legislation in the afternoon and the trial either in the morning or in the evening.
Then, after “a sufficiently legitimate period of time,” Mr. Bennett said, the Senate could vote to end the trial.
Latest updates from Associated Press