|
|
A L S O+T O D A Y Clinton defense who's who The full-text of the White House defense report T A B L E+T A L K Dan Rather tells Larry King that Hillary is the Democrats' strongest bet for 2000. Does America need another Clinton in the Oval Office? Join the discussion in Table Talk's Politics area ___________________
R E C E N T L Y Gentleman's agreement Nappy and proud? The uneasy death of Florence Griffith Joyner Hello Oprah, good-bye Constitution Impeachment diary - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Browse the - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
|
![]() ![]() |
|
![]() |
Clinton: TV or not TV?
As the lame-duck House moves toward impeachment, the president counts votes and ponders another national address. BY JOAN WALSH | During his appearance Tuesday before the House Judiciary Committee as a Clinton witness, Yale Law School professor Bruce Ackerman argued that a "lame-duck Congress" can't vote to impeach a popularly elected president. That issue has become more than just an academic debate in suburban Seattle's First Congressional District. There, lame-duck Rep. Rick White, a Republican, is expected to vote in favor of impeaching President Clinton for perjury, even though White lost his seat to challenger Jay Inslee last month in an election nationally considered a referendum on impeachment. "This is a very grave matter," said Inslee, who saw his public support rise in his uphill congressional race last October when he aired ads attacking White and the Republican Party for the impeachment crisis. "Nobody can argue with a straight face that the people of the First District want to see impeachment." White hasn't formally stated how he will vote on impeachment. "He has said he thinks perjury is an impeachable offense, but he wants to wait and see what the Judiciary Committee does," says White's chief of staff, Randy Pepple. Pepple acknowledged that the committee is virtually certain to vote out an article of impeachment on the perjury matter, and said "you can infer" that White would then vote the same way. But he added, "He won't make a statement until he sees the report that comes from Judiciary." At least four other Republicans are in the same position as White -- defeated by Democrats, but likely to vote for impeachment anyway. The strategy of rushing to deal with the impeachment issue, which seemed to favor the president -- by getting the mess over with -- just a month ago, now hurts him, since the Republicans have a 21-vote majority in the 105th Congress, which will drop to an 11-vote majority when the 106th Congress takes office in January. Ackerman's argument that the 20th Amendment was intended to ensure "that only a truly democratic House, and not a collection of lame ducks ... has the congressional authority" to impeach the president, was perhaps the best defense presented by the president's roster of witnesses on Tuesday. Even Clinton opponent Charles Canady, R-Fla., acknowledged it was the only "new" argument in a hearing marked by repetitive, partisan bickering. Should the current House vote to approve articles of impeachment anyway, Ackerman said, Supreme Court Chief Justice William Rehnquist "would be well within his rights to quash the lame-duck impeachment and remand the matter back to the new House of Representatives." Ackerman's testimony painted a picture of a Congress bogged down in procedural and legal controversy all through 1999 if the House votes out articles of impeachment this month. Other witnesses told the committee that a Senate trial would feature the cross-examination of Monica Lewinsky, graphic testimony about various sex acts and enough lurid content to compete with daytime soap operas and talk shows. N E X T+P A G E+| There may be enough votes now PHOTOGRAPH: AP/WIDE-WORLD |
|
Arts & Entertainment | Books | Comics | Life | News | People
Politics | Sex | Tech & Business | Audio
The Free Software Project | The Movie Page
Letters | Columnists | Salon Plus
Copyright © 2000 Salon.com All rights reserved.