BY BILLY HOUSE
Gannett News Service
WASHINGTON -- A key House prosecutor Sunday raised the possibility that the Senate could vote to convict President Clinton of perjury and obstruction of justice, yet choose not to remove him from office.
"There's some historical precedent they could do that," said Rep. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., appearing on CBS's Face The Nation. '
'If you look in the history of impeachment trials in the Senate, I believe you will find that dynamic of where you had two separate votes, and that will certainly be up to the Senate . . . that's, I think a constitutional option," Mr. Graham said.
Mr. Graham said it is not his decision to make, "but that would certainly be an interesting dynamic, no doubt about it, in this case."
Senators appearing Sunday on Face the Nation wouldn't immediately rule out the possibility that they could convict but then hold out the option of leaving Mr. Clinton in office.
Jonathan Turley, a professor of law at George Washington University, said that impeaching a president but then voting not to remove him from office would be a "novel" approach for the Senate to take. It would also be one largely
unsupported by the Constitution and not intended by its framers, he said.
But Mr. Turley, who has just completed a soon-to-be-published study of all prior Senate impeachment trials, said there is a history of the Senate tinkering with impeachment procedures.
On the Senate floor Saturday, Mr. Graham had made no mention of the notion that Mr. Clinton might keep his office even if convicted by the Senate. He and other Republican House impeachment managers concluded their opening presentation Saturday.
In fact, Mr. Graham on Saturday urged senators to "cleanse this office."
But he did tell senators that the prospect of removing a popular president from office, and thereby undoing the will of voters in two elections, "is a very scary thought in a democracy."
Mr. Clinton's lawyers will open their presentation Tuesday, the same day the president is to deliver his State of the Union address. Clinton lawyers could not be reached Sunday.
Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., called the issue of separate votes on impeachment and removal "a very serious question." "My understanding is that you cannot separate the two, but we'll wait and see," Ms. Feinstein said.
"It's an interesting possibility," said Sen. Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., on the same program. "I think it's one of the things to take a look at."
"It can change everything," said Sen. Robert Torricelli, D-N.J. "But let me preface it by saying no one is conceding at this point. The president certainly is not going to concede, that there indeed was perjury committed."
Mr. Turley said in an interview later: "The Constitutional Convention and later ratification debate all strongly suggest that the framers were suggesting that conviction would necessarily result in removal and disqualification of the office holder.
"The framers were quite clear: They wanted the Senate
to be limited by the static structural system," he said.
But Mr. Turley added: "In my study of past Senate trials there has always been an interest in senators to improvise in the procedures and options for impeachments."
For instance, federal Judge Alcee Hastings was impeached in 1989 -- but the House articles did not call for his disqualification, he said.
Mr. Turley said the Supreme Court "has repeatedly held that most issues relating to impeachment and Senate trials are not reviewable by the judicial branch," suggesting the Senate may have latitude on its approach.
But he said there is no constitutional wiggle room on the requirement that a two-thirds Senate majority vote would be required simply to convict -- even if the intention were to afterward leave a president in office.
