Columnist E.J. Dionne: Impeachment not intended as a symbolic political tool

Friday, Dec. 11, 1998 | 12:23 p.m.

"ALL IMPEACHMENT is," says House Republican Whip Tom DeLay, "it's like a grand jury that looks at the evidence, and the House decides whether the evidence warrants sending it to the Senate for a trial. That's all it is."

DeLay, a Texas Republican who is the leading voice for impeaching President Clinton, candidly defines the core issue in the current battle. It is not about whether the president should be removed from office. Everyone agrees the votes aren't there in the Senate to do so.

It's about whether impeachment should be used as a symbolic act, a High Test Censure. Think of this as defining impeachment down.

This week's two-day defense of the president before the House Judiciary Committee reminded House members that voting for impeachment is not the same thing as, say, voting a grand jury indictment for burglary. It is a profound constitutional act that's happened only once in our history.

Elizabeth Holtzman, who served on the House Judiciary Committee during Watergate, had a precise answer to DeLay's claim: An impeachment vote in the House is one-half of a momentous process, not simply a pre-game show.

Those who vote for impeachment should do so only if they think the president should be removed, Holtzman said. "The goal of impeachment is not to punish the president but to protect the nation."

Rep. and Sen.-elect Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., pointed to another trivialization of the impeachment process. Noting that the president had supposedly lost moderate Republican support in the House because he didn't seem contrite enough, a rightly incredulous Schumer observed: "You may judge the president as to what kind of man he is by the level of contrition, but not whether he should be impeached."

On Wednesday, a panel of former prosecutors underscored the other important point: Given the nature of this case and the available evidence, the most plausible charges against the president -- accusations that he lied under oath -- would probably never be brought before a grand jury, let alone to trial.

"Responsible prosecutors do not bring these charges lightly. ... they do not run cases up the flagpole to see how the grand jury will react," said Thomas Sullivan, former U.S. Attorney for Illinois' northern district.

"This case would not be considered seriously for prosecution." Sullivan added. Former Massachusetts Gov. William Weld, a Republican who spent years as a prosecutor, seconded the motion.

Yet the impeachment train keeps moving forward as the two sides talk past each other. One side says only impeachment will demonstrate respect for the rule of law and acknowledge the gravity of Clinton's actions. The other sees this case as the work of a politically motivated prosecutor and politicians seeking revenge for losing two elections to Clinton.

Lost in this political Tower of Babel is how much the two sides agree: Nearly everyone thinks Clinton should be punished. No one defending Clinton against impeachment defends his actions. His supporters describe them with words such as "reprehensible."

Weld laid out what a consensus solution might look like: a congressional report detailing what the president did; a written acknowledgment by him that he acted wrongly; an agreement on his part to pay a fine; and no pardon, meaning that after his term ended he'd face whatever legal action -- if any -- his misdeeds merited.

It will fall to moderate Republicans in the House to bring this or some other compromise to fruition by first voting against impeachment. It has often been the task of GOP moderates to create the consensus that allows the country to move forward -- on civil rights, on the environment, on fiscal prudence. It's their fate to do this again.

Make no mistake: This will not be an easy vote for any Republican -- something the White House did not understand until recently. Conservatives who passionately favor impeachment are saying that Republicans who vote against it could face future primary challenges and other political headaches.

Many moderates ask themselves why they should stick their necks out for a president who behaved so badly.

They should do so -- and I suspect enough eventually will -- to protect impeachment from being politicized and defined downward. They'll also do so for a profoundly conservative reason: In this case, an impeachment vote represents a radical departure from past constitutional practice.

Impeachment isn't censure, it's not a form of punishment, and it's not a scarlet letter. Congress can get all three without voting for impeachment.