Salon Newsreal | Endgame?

A L S O+T O D A Y

Impeachment notebook
By Joshua Micah Marshall
Jesse Helms snores, Al Franken gets tossed, House managers look overmatched

Witness for the prosecution?
By Nicholas Confessore
Dick Morris, conspiracy theorist, could find a way to hurt the president again

T A B L E+T A L K
Why do we need a death penalty? Discuss the reasoning behind capital punishment in the Social Issues area of Table Talk
___________________
Visit barnesandnoble.com for politics books on both sides of the aisle
___________________

R E C E N T L Y
Months of sleaze
By Jeff Stein
In an interview, Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle says that's what Monica Lewinsky's return to Washington could herald
(01/25/99)
Unequal rights for haters
By Ishmael Reed
White hate groups and their friends get a free pass from the media, while black haters are routinely savaged
(01/23/99)
Black like me
By Joan Walsh
The smearing of White House lawyer Cheryl Mills raised my nationalist ire -- but I'm white
(01/23/99)
Ask Pat Robertson
By James Poniewozik
The reverend says his call to halt impeachment was just "political analysis." A look at Pat Robertson's worldly wisdom
(01/23/99)
Stalking the president
By Mollie Dickenson
Linda Tripp could help Julie Hiatt Steele -- and President Clinton -- refute Kathleen Willey's charges
(01/22/99)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Browse the
Newsreal Archives
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

spacer

Endgame?
REPUBLICANS RATCHET UP THE RHETORIC WHILE LOOKING FOR A WAY OUT.

BY JOSHUA MICAH MARSHALL | Over the weekend and all through Monday, the presidential impeachment trial rocked and sloshed toward some undetermined but increasingly inevitable showdown. The one thing everyone agreed on was that the weekend did not go well for the Republicans. Saturday degenerated into squabbling reminiscent of the House proceedings in December, and the return of Monica Lewinsky to the capital presaged still more of the confusion and ugliness that has made the public increasingly insistent that the trial be brought somehow, some way, to an end.
By Monday afternoon the progress of events pointed in two contradictory directions. On the one hand, there was increasing talk about different witnesses the House might want to call, and 10 Senate Republicans sent a list of 10 new questions to the president. But behind the scenes, Republicans seemed increasingly anxious for a deal. Senate sources told Salon late Monday that even a majority of the Republican caucus is now, privately, looking for a way to avoid witnesses. The only question is how a deal will be fashioned and which Republicans will provide the crucial votes to make it stick.
The trial proceedings livened up measurably Friday when scripted presentations gave way to questions from the senators. The new phase actually brought an air of uncertainty to what might happen. At one point House manager Asa Hutchinson leapt to his feet to object to a question from Sen. Barbara Boxer. Every one in the chamber broke into laughter when Chief Justice William Rehnquist, clearly caught off-guard, looked around for a moment and then asked if a manager was even allowed to object to a question in the first place.
You had to feel sorry, though, for Ed Bryant, the first House manager to speak on Friday. Ever since the White House's strong finish the day before, the managers had been smarting out loud about how unfair it was that they had no chance to rebut the White House case. So the first question of the day, from the Republicans, simply asked the House managers whether there was anything in the White House presentation that they would like to rebut -- obviously coordinated by House and Senate Republicans. But just before the question was asked, Rehnquist announced that he would limit answers to five minutes (a limit he rarely enforced). Bryant clearly thought he was going to have a half-hour or so to rail against the president's case. He ended up racing off an incoherent speech that was probably a shambles of the presentation he meant to give.
But the real drama -- and the real blow to the House managers -- came a few minutes after 3 p.m. on Friday. A staffer came walking through the press gallery handing out photocopies of a press release from Sen. Robert Byrd, D-W.Va., and warned us not to rush out of the gallery as soon as we read it. This got a chuckle -- such press releases rarely merit reading, let alone reporting -- but it turned out to be a big deal. Byrd was announcing that he'd be voting to dismiss the charges against the president. Soon the same press release was making its way around the Senate floor.
Byrd has been the most overwatched Senator in the entire impeachment trial. Earlier in the month, he had pundits swooning when he condemned the president's post-impeachment "rally" as an example of "shameless arrogance." But Byrd is important because everyone has such an outsized impression of him. And he is known to hold the president, personally, in deep disdain. He had conspicuously held open the possibility that he could be persuaded to vote to convict Clinton. Every possible scenario for the president's conviction required that Byrd vote to convict, and bring along a dozen of his Democratic brethren by sheer dint of his leadership. When Byrd announced he'd vote to dismiss the charges, it meant that not one Democrat would break ranks; and the Republicans knew it.
Byrd's announcement left the managers, and a lot of Republican senators, really pissed off. I saw Rep. James Rogan coming down one of the stairwells with a gaggle of reporters, griping about Byrd and asking why he couldn't have waited at least until the day's presentations were over. Clearly, Byrd's announcement crystallized the steady erosion of support for a full-length Senate trial.
But it only confirmed a more pervasive shift in the mood of the proceedings: They had become a distinct embarrassment to the Senate, especially to Republicans. Later that evening one Republican insider told me how a number of the marquee "moderate Republicans" from last month's House impeachment fight had called him and told him they never would have voted to impeach if they had known it would come to this. Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, was proposing that the trial merely be adjourned with the Senate voting to "acknowledge" the House's vote to impeach the president. By the evening, it seemed clear that the only question left wasn't whether the trial would end, but how it could be ended with everyone allowed to save face.
N E X T+P A G E+| The House's Hail Mary pass

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Become a Salon member. Click here.

A L S O+T O D A Y Impeachment notebook By Joshua Micah Marshall Jesse Helms snores, Al Franken gets tossed, House managers look overmatched Witness for the prosecution? By Nicholas Confessore Dick Morris, conspiracy theorist, could find a way to hurt the president again T A B L E+T A L K Why do we need a death penalty? Discuss the reasoning behind capital punishment in the Social Issues area of Table Talk ___________________ Visit barnesandnoble.com for politics books on both sides of the aisle ___________________ R E C E N T L Y Months of sleaze By Jeff Stein In an interview, Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle says that's what Monica Lewinsky's return to Washington could herald (01/25/99) Unequal rights for haters By Ishmael Reed White hate groups and their friends get a free pass from the media, while black haters are routinely savaged (01/23/99) Black like me By Joan Walsh The smearing of White House lawyer Cheryl Mills raised my nationalist ire -- but I'm white (01/23/99) Ask Pat Robertson By James Poniewozik The reverend says his call to halt impeachment was just "political analysis." A look at Pat Robertson's worldly wisdom (01/23/99) Stalking the president By Mollie Dickenson Linda Tripp could help Julie Hiatt Steele -- and President Clinton -- refute Kathleen Willey's charges (01/22/99) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Browse the Newsreal Archives - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
		Endgame? REPUBLICANS RATCHET UP THE RHETORIC WHILE LOOKING FOR A WAY OUT. BY JOSHUA MICAH MARSHALL \| Over the weekend and all through Monday, the presidential impeachment trial rocked and sloshed toward some undetermined but increasingly inevitable showdown. The one thing everyone agreed on was that the weekend did not go well for the Republicans. Saturday degenerated into squabbling reminiscent of the House proceedings in December, and the return of Monica Lewinsky to the capital presaged still more of the confusion and ugliness that has made the public increasingly insistent that the trial be brought somehow, some way, to an end. By Monday afternoon the progress of events pointed in two contradictory directions. On the one hand, there was increasing talk about different witnesses the House might want to call, and 10 Senate Republicans sent a list of 10 new questions to the president. But behind the scenes, Republicans seemed increasingly anxious for a deal. Senate sources told Salon late Monday that even a majority of the Republican caucus is now, privately, looking for a way to avoid witnesses. The only question is how a deal will be fashioned and which Republicans will provide the crucial votes to make it stick. The trial proceedings livened up measurably Friday when scripted presentations gave way to questions from the senators. The new phase actually brought an air of uncertainty to what might happen. At one point House manager Asa Hutchinson leapt to his feet to object to a question from Sen. Barbara Boxer. Every one in the chamber broke into laughter when Chief Justice William Rehnquist, clearly caught off-guard, looked around for a moment and then asked if a manager was even allowed to object to a question in the first place. You had to feel sorry, though, for Ed Bryant, the first House manager to speak on Friday. Ever since the White House's strong finish the day before, the managers had been smarting out loud about how unfair it was that they had no chance to rebut the White House case. So the first question of the day, from the Republicans, simply asked the House managers whether there was anything in the White House presentation that they would like to rebut -- obviously coordinated by House and Senate Republicans. But just before the question was asked, Rehnquist announced that he would limit answers to five minutes (a limit he rarely enforced). Bryant clearly thought he was going to have a half-hour or so to rail against the president's case. He ended up racing off an incoherent speech that was probably a shambles of the presentation he meant to give. But the real drama -- and the real blow to the House managers -- came a few minutes after 3 p.m. on Friday. A staffer came walking through the press gallery handing out photocopies of a press release from Sen. Robert Byrd, D-W.Va., and warned us not to rush out of the gallery as soon as we read it. This got a chuckle -- such press releases rarely merit reading, let alone reporting -- but it turned out to be a big deal. Byrd was announcing that he'd be voting to dismiss the charges against the president. Soon the same press release was making its way around the Senate floor. Byrd has been the most overwatched Senator in the entire impeachment trial. Earlier in the month, he had pundits swooning when he condemned the president's post-impeachment "rally" as an example of "shameless arrogance." But Byrd is important because everyone has such an outsized impression of him. And he is known to hold the president, personally, in deep disdain. He had conspicuously held open the possibility that he could be persuaded to vote to convict Clinton. Every possible scenario for the president's conviction required that Byrd vote to convict, and bring along a dozen of his Democratic brethren by sheer dint of his leadership. When Byrd announced he'd vote to dismiss the charges, it meant that not one Democrat would break ranks; and the Republicans knew it. Byrd's announcement left the managers, and a lot of Republican senators, really pissed off. I saw Rep. James Rogan coming down one of the stairwells with a gaggle of reporters, griping about Byrd and asking why he couldn't have waited at least until the day's presentations were over. Clearly, Byrd's announcement crystallized the steady erosion of support for a full-length Senate trial. But it only confirmed a more pervasive shift in the mood of the proceedings: They had become a distinct embarrassment to the Senate, especially to Republicans. Later that evening one Republican insider told me how a number of the marquee "moderate Republicans" from last month's House impeachment fight had called him and told him they never would have voted to impeach if they had known it would come to this. Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, was proposing that the trial merely be adjourned with the Senate voting to "acknowledge" the House's vote to impeach the president. By the evening, it seemed clear that the only question left wasn't whether the trial would end, but how it could be ended with everyone allowed to save face. N E X T+P A G E+\| The House's Hail Mary pass - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Become a Salon member. Click here.