Battle Shifts to How Endgame Is Interpreted

WASHINGTON —  With Wednesday’s Senate votes virtually assuring that President Clinton will not be forced from office, the battle on Capitol Hill is now focused largely on shaping the interpretation of that inexorable outcome--both by history and voters.

On a day that saw the Senate divide along the same sharp partisan lines that fractured the House impeachment vote in December, Senate Republicans bent to the same powerful force that has sunk all previous efforts to negotiate an end to the confrontation: the unwavering refusal of GOP conservatives to abandon the drive to remove Clinton.

The divisions in the Senate were underscored first by the identical and largely party-line votes against dismissing the case and for subpoenaing three witnesses, then by the two sides’ failure Wednesday night to reach a bipartisan agreement on how to conduct the next stage of the process.

That agreement is still expected to come as soon as today, largely because both sides in the Senate are leery of replicating the raw partisan conflict that defined the House proceedings. But even if they can reach an accord over form, Democrats and Republicans remain locked on a collision course over how the endgame of this contorted chess match is interpreted.

At the fulcrum of the maneuvering is a struggle over shaping public perceptions about the legitimacy of the House vote to impeach the president and the significance of the president’s offenses.

Reinforcing Perception of Partisanship

As the comments from Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle (D-S.D.) immediately after Wednesday’s two votes indicated, the principal Democratic goal is to reinforce the public’s perception of the impeachment drive as an exercise in partisanship, not principle.

“The impeachment process has been abused by a partisan effort and we should bring it now to a close,” Daschle said.

For their part, Senate Republicans want to conduct the endgame in a way that avoids undercutting House prosecutors or that allows Clinton to claim victory when the trial ends.

“For conservatives, the worst thing in the world would be that it looks as though the House has voted illegitimately and [Clinton] is doing his victory dance,” said Marshall Wittmann, director of congressional relations at the conservative Heritage Foundation.

Meanwhile, even though Wednesday’s 56-44 vote against dismissal showed that the two-thirds majority needed to oust Clinton from office presumably is unobtainable, the trial continues to lurch forward. Indeed, Wednesday’s vote did nothing more than confirm the pattern that has appeared at every other crucial juncture in the case and just will not go away: Despite sporadic hopes throughout the process that a bipartisan coalition could form to negotiate an end to the process--in the House Judiciary Committee, in the full House, in the Senate--the momentum of impeachment has been inexorable. And it has been inexorably partisan.

The Senate, a far less ideological institution than the House, has been struggling to avoid a complete break between the parties. Despite Wednesday’s party-line votes--and the escalating rhetoric that echoed across the airwaves from some lawmakers afterward--there remains a genuine desire among senators to maintain a veneer of bipartisanship and to bring the trial to a speedy end.

“There still is a strong desire to keep the rancor between the parties down,” said Sen. Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.).

“One thing Republicans and Democrats agree on virtually unanimously is [that] we have impeachment fatigue,” said Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.).

That’s why Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott (R-Miss.) and Daschle went to work immediately after Wednesday’s vote on an agreement on how to keep a tight rein on depositions and wrap up the trial--possibly by mid-February, Lott said.

Still, there are countervailing forces outside the Senate that could make it difficult to close the books as quickly as senators would like. The White House, for instance, may ask to call its own witnesses. How hard the defense pushes will be determined by whether Clinton decides that the risk of prolonging the trial is outweighed by any expected vindication he might get from further proceedings.

House GOP Keeps Up Pressure for Witnesses

House Republicans, with the political weight of the party’s conservative base behind them, are maintaining pressure on the Senate to carry the trial beyond taking witness depositions. They are pushing hard for live witnesses and some of the managers have suggested they may eventually ask for additional witnesses.

“The Senate can always make a motion to increase the number of witnesses,” Rep. James E. Rogan (R-Glendale) noted.

And although the case’s outcome seems preordained, some Republicans remain concerned that any shortcut would create a dangerous precedent. Even if only a few senators are still undecided, “we do not want to shut the process off,” said Sen. Robert F. Bennett (R-Utah).

Compounding all of these difficulties is the fact that Senate Democrats and Republicans--even if they largely share a joint interest in concluding the trial--are pursuing inimical political goals along the way.

Senate Republicans want the impeachment inquiry to appear legitimate and to avoid seeming to be too partisan. Senate Democrats want to portray the proceedings in as partisan a light as possible.

Some Republicans continue to nurture a longshot hope that, if they can keep the case alive, they can unearth some new revelation that will erode Clinton’s support. But mostly, Senate Republicans are contending with a different set of calculations.

Fears of Backlash Clinton Vindication

On the one hand, they are desperate to avoid any sense that they have undercut the House Republicans--which would trigger a backlash from their party’s base--and equally intent on preventing Clinton from claiming vindication when the trial ends.

The first concern largely explains why Senate Republicans voted to call witnesses--even though some doubt that they will significantly advance the case. The second is fueling discussion of a plan from Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine) that would allow the Senate to approve a measure declaring Clinton guilty as charged while not removing him from office.

“Many of us are concerned about . . . an acquittal vote--what kind of message that would send to the White House and to the American people,” Collins said. “So we are exploring ways to separate the issue of whether or not the president committed the offenses from the issue of whether or not they justify his removal.”

That option is drawing support from conservatives because they see it as a way to place the Senate on record supporting the House vote to impeach--even if the Senate does not endorse the House prosecutors’ contention that Clinton should be removed from office.

But Senate Republicans are also plainly uneasy about extending the trial when two-thirds of Americans are telling poll-takers that they want it over. That’s why they continue to negotiate with Democrats for limits on the trial--even at the risk of provoking complaints from the House managers and their supporters on the right.

In these discussions, Democrats are also juggling competing values. For all of their bluster about extending the process, Senate Democrats--like the White House--are eager to wrap it up before any new surprises emerge. But they are also intent on denying Republicans opportunities to repair the damage that has been done to the GOP’s image through the long, bitter struggle.

Democrats pointedly refused to begin negotiating rules for the trial’s next stage until after Wednesday’s votes offered them an opportunity to demonstrate a clear partisan division--and stamped the Republicans with responsibility for prolonging the proceedings.

“If they continue to want a trial, it’s their trial,” said Sen. John F. Kerry (D-Mass.), a phrase echoed by Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.).

Immediately after the votes, Democrats rushed to microphones to portray the decisions as partisan--and to link the Senate Republicans with the unpopular events in the House.

“It seems now that the House managers are the ones calling the shots,” contended Sen. Edward M. Kennedy (D-Mass.).

With considerable justification, Republicans complain that in their virtual lock-step voting, Democrats are behaving in just as partisan a fashion as the GOP. But as a hard-headed political calculation, Democrats are probably right that denying Republicans any support on the key votes will make it extremely difficult for the GOP to reverse the public’s negative verdict on the impeachment process.

“If you are going to impeach a president, you have to convince at least a fair chunk of his own party, or it’s never going to be considered legitimate,” says political scientist Gary C. Jacobson of UC San Diego. “That’s not a good interpretation for the Republicans: it just suggests [that] they couldn’t cope with Clinton so they wanted to destroy him.”