By: Mary Mostert, Analyst, Original Sources (www.originalsources.com)
Sunday, February 7, 1999
Agence France-Press reported yesterday that Senator Byrd has concluded that charges against Bill Clinton "do rise to the constitutionally prescribed level warranting ouster upon conviction." Two weeks ago Sen. Byrd introduced the motion to dismiss the Articles of Impeachment against Clinton. That effort failed.
Today, a pre-recorded interview with Sen. Byrd will be aired by NBC today (Sunday February 7) in which he states: "The question facing senators is to remove or not to remove.".
"Does this rise into the level of high crime and misdemeanors? I'd say yes, no doubt about it in my mind. That's the issue, and the Constitution requires that if he is convicted, he is automatically removed immediately," he says.
"So it comes down to the question, it comes down to the issue to remove or not to remove. That is the question," according to Byrd, who calls the decision "the most heart-wrenching of any vote that any senator will even be called on to make."
"It will be very difficult to stand and say 'not guilty,' very difficult," says Byrd, who just two weeks ago sought to dismiss the second presidential impeachment trial in U.S. history rather than have to cast that vote.
"Who is kidding who here? I have to live with myself. I have to live with my conscience, and I have to live with the Constitution. That Constitution is just like the Bible. You can't write it over," he adds. The 81-year-old senator, widely respected by his colleagues for his devotion to Senate traditions and protocol, does not specify how he would vote.
The interview took place, I might add, BEFORE the able House Managers presented their succinct tightly documented presentation on Saturday. Almost exactly two months ago, on December 6th, when the entire press corps in Washington had pronounced the impeachment efforts in the House of Representatives "dead" I wrote a column entitled To Avoid Impeachment, Democrats Drag Red Herring Across the Trail in which I noted:
"Actually, the White House attorneys so far have made no effort whatever to "defend the president." What they have done is attack Kenneth Starr and the Republicans. It appears that whatever amount of time the White House is given for their ‘defense’ of the president will be spent this time as well on what was once called "dragging a red herring across the trail." Dragging a red herring across the trail is a technique that was perfected in the 1950s and 1960s by socialists in our midst who attacked the ‘establishment’ to deflect any criticism of what they were doing. It comes from the 1800 when wily British fugitives discovered that rubbing a herring across their trail would divert the bloodhounds hot in their pursuit. Later, in debate and detective mysteries, the ‘red herring’ described any clever device used to distract people from the main issue.
Michigan Rep. John Conyers, top Democrat on the Judiciary panel, and the White House lawyers have the red herring technique mastered. Conyers said Sunday that ‘This thing is clinical now, it's psychopathic, people want partisanship blood, I'm trying to explain to my few Republican friends, they are digging a deeper grave,’ he said on NBC's Meet the Press. ‘You can't tear Nov. 3 off your calendar last month. It was real, ask Newt Gingrich,’ he added, referring to Gingrich's resignation as House Speaker."
Rep. Lindsay Graham, one of the House Impeachment Managers, wrapped up the House presentation yesterday with a brilliant summation in which he used the testimony of the President’s BEST FRIENDS to convict him, along with snippets from Dr. Battalino’s testimony who was convicted and deprived of both her medical license and her ability to obtain the right to practice law, her OTHER degree.While the Gallup Poll for November 21-22, 1998, indicated that the "vast majority of Americans – 89% – believe that Bill Clinton probably or definitely lied under oath while President and 59% say that he probably or definitely participated in an effort to obstruct justice." It was sobering to hear how effectively Bill Clinton deceived his best friends and supporters - Vernon Jordan and Sidney Blumenthal. If he deceives his FRIENDS and his FAMILY, does anyone seriously believe him when he makes political promises about "caring" for the welfare of ordinary people?
Remember back in June and July who the villain of the month was on talk shows like Geraldo Rivera, and among commentators, especially the female commentators? It was Linda Tripp. And what was it about Linda Tripp that earned her the hatred of the commentators? Why, she deceived her "friend" Monica by taping their conversations. I observed in a column entitled "Linda Tripp is Free and at Peace - Because she Told the Truth:"
"Tripp bashing seemed to be the order of the day over the long holiday week-end, at times taking top billing over the 4th of July fireworks. It appears that the Bashing of Linda Tripp revolves around the notion that one girl should not squeal on another girl, regardless of the situation. I read one attack after the other about her "secretly taped" conversations with Monica Lewinsky.
"Amazingly, none of the attacks found space to mention that she had been asked to lie under oath about the conversations and that she didn't plan to do that, which put her personally in serious jeopardy. She has been around Washington long enough to observe what happens to people who don't cooperate with whatever the Clinton White House thinks up. The advice by an older and wiser female counselor to tape the conversations so she could prove their existence was practical and, as things have turned out, the only thing that is saving Linda Tripp from a White House spin doctor destruction. They may hate her, but they can't say she is making it all up.
"So, what to do? Try to convince the American people that she is a terrible person because she "pretended to be Monica Lewinsky's friend, and yet taped her conversations.
"What kind of "friend" urges you to commit a felony by lying to a grand jury? Where on earth did the columnists and commentators ever get the idea that Monica Lewinsky was a "friend?" As near as I can tell, Monica Lewinsky was a pest. An Associated Press Story in October reported that Linda Tripp wrote an e-mail to Lewinsky saying, ‘Please give me a break; I can't take this.’"
So, the women of America were bashing Linda Tripp for taping her friend who was urging her to lie under oath, but it’s OK for the men of America, especially it is Bill Clinton, to lie to their best friends and set them up to spend thousands of dollars for expensive lawyers trying to extricate themselves from legal problems caused by the lie? And Vernon Jordan and Sidney Blumenthal are still FRIENDS with someone who would do that to them? What is it about Bill Clinton that makes women willing to be his doormat and men willing to risk their careers and reputations to cover for him?
A week before the House of Representatives impeached Bill Clinton, there was almost unanimous opinion that there was "no way" the House would vote for impeachment. I believed that they would impeach - because I was reading a lot of the e-mail going to members of the House. In the last couple of week I’ve read a lot of e-mail going to Senators. Why would Sen. Byrd be wavering a scant 2 weeks after he introduced a motion to dismiss the charges?
Maybe Sen. Byrd has been reading HIS mail. What I am seeing now is a bit different. The bulk of the mail going to the Senators is an appeal for them to show some courage. The evidence is now truly overwhelming. Will it be an issue in the year 2000 election? It will. And the issue will not be morals or "privacy rights" or whether or not Clinton was a "victim" of a female predator. I think the issue is going to be courage. Who in the Senate has enough courage to do what is right without groveling?
In fact, if Sen. Byrd is wavering to the extent he appears, he is beginning to realize that his decades of service in the Senate will be viewed in history by the vote he casts on the Clinton impeachment. If he votes to protect Clinton in spite of his violation of law, his lying and his manipulation not only of his best friends, but of the people of America, his place in history will not be his years of work to uphold the "dignity" of the Senate. He will go down in history as a man who betrayed the best traditions of America and the American people.
That will be a big price for the Senators to pay and one that, perhaps, Sen. Byrd will not want to pay. Keep Tuned.
To comment: mmostert@originalsources.com Click here To send a letter to your member of Congress