Columnist David Broder: Game ends after vote on removal, rules say

David Broder

Thursday, Feb. 11, 1999 | 10:54 a.m.

PLATOONS of senators, strapped in their chairs all day Saturday and forced to watch portions of the videotaped interviews with three impeachment trial witnesses -- tapes most of them had already seen in their entirety -- burst forth on the Sunday morning television shows and vented their bottled-up thoughts.

It was not an edifying spectacle. Sen. Robert Byrd of West Virginia, the chamber's unofficial historian, told ABC that he had concluded President Clinton had committed "high crimes and misdemeanors."

And then this Solon, who declared "the Constitution is just like the Bible" in its immutability, said he might let Clinton off because he has less than two years to serve, the economy is strong and most people want him to stay. Did he find those exceptions somewhere in the impeachment clause -- or just in the wanderings of his own mind?

Byrd's confusion was symptomatic of the answers senators gave when various moderators asked: What will you do if the Senate, as widely forecast, decides later this week to acquit Clinton of the perjury and obstruction of justice charges passed by the House of Representatives?

The right answer, which occurred to only a few of them, is: Nothing.

Once the votes have been cast, the constitutional process is over. The House and Senate have discharged their responsibilities. And they and their constituents will have plenty of time to reflect on what has occurred.

The Constitution provides only one method of dealing with a lawless president: impeachment and conviction, which means automatic removal. A president may resign, but Clinton long ago rejected that honorable course of action.

Still, a good many senators said they were uncomfortable letting acquittal be the final word from them. "I don't want the vote to acquit viewed as a vote to exonerate," Sen. Susan Collins of Maine, a Republican, said. These senators said they would be more comfortable if acquittal were quickly followed by what they called "a strong, bipartisan resolution of censure."

Sen. John D. (Jay) Rockefeller IV, like Byrd a West Virginia Democrat, declared, "I want to be able to say to myself and my people, 'What he did was wrong.' "

To which, the proper reply is: Say it, senator. No one is stopping you. Say it in any way you like, and send word all over the state.

But stand up and do it yourself. Do not attach to the constitutional process of impeachment an improvised makeshift of uncertain impact and dubious precedent, simply to solve a short-term public relations problem.

Sen. Dianne Feinstein, the California Democrat who has been trying for weeks to draft a bipartisan censure resolution, bristled when Sen. Phil Gramm, the Texas Republican who is perhaps the most outspoken opponent of censure, said on NBC's "Meet the Press" that "censure is about giving political cover."

Sen. Joseph Lieberman, a Connecticut Democrat and one of Feinstein's collaborators, said, "It is not about politics. It's about values."

Assume that to be true. But consider: Does a resolution of censure add anything to the weight of 100 senators voicing their individual denunciations of the president's behavior? If not, it is redundant, an exercise without meaning.

If it does add something, it is presumably a form of punishment, less severe than conviction and removal from office. But there is no sanction for such a punishment in the Constitution, and the precedents are terrible. Andrew Jackson was once censured by the Senate, only to have it erased when party control switched.

Gramm pointed out, as I have previously, that Richard Nixon recommended censure of President Harry Truman for firing Gen. Douglas MacArthur, which made Truman wildly unpopular at the time, but is now viewed as an act of statesmanship.

The inherent problems in the censure option are reflected in the confusion among its proponents. Feinstein and Olympia Snowe of Maine, a Republican, insist there be no negotiations with the White House. Sen. Christopher Dodd, Democrat of Connecticut, wants the censure to be signed by the president, obviously requiring negotiations. He also wants the House brought aboard, which means another protracted set of discussions.

And for what? "For the history books," Feinstein and others say.

Far better to leave Clinton -- and Congress -- to the judgment of history. These folks -- all of them -- have made enough of a hash of things already.