AFTER THE VOTE

December 19, 1998
		On this historic day, the House of Representatives has passed two articles of impeachment against President Clinton. Margaret Warner analyzes the political ramifications and Elizabeth Farnsworth talks to the historians about the implications for the country.

Full coverage of the impeachment hearings. Dec. 19, 1998: Rep. Livingston resigns as Speaker of the House-elect. Dec. 10, 1998: The House Judiciary Committee hears summations from Democratic investigator Abbe Lowell and Republican investigator David Schippers. Browse the NewsHour's coverage of Conversations on Clinton, White House, and the Starr Investigation.     The U.S. House of Representatives The House Judiciary Committee Background on the impeachment process from JURIST, the Law Professor Network.	MARGARET WARNER: Paul, Senate Majority Leader Bob Dole just sent out another sort of public letter yesterday saying even though he would have voted to impeach in the House, he still thinks some sort of censure deal is the way to go. Do you think Dole’s going to play an active role in this? Do you think he has clout if he decides to do so? PAUL GIGOT: Oh, he has some personal contacts among senators, obviously. He was their leader for a time on the Republican side, and he has some moral authority as a former Republican candidate, well respected figure. So there may be people who heed him. I think it’s a little easier to have censure in the Senate because you’re now – than it was in the House – because you’re now in the punishment stage; you’re now in determining how the – how the case ultimately comes out. He has been impeached. And I think that in terms of heeding the Constitution, nobody doubts that the Senate can do what it wants. I mean, there was some debate about what the House could do, but nobody doubts the Senate can dismiss the case if it wants. It can agree to some kind of plea bargain, or it can go up to it and remove the president.
	Trent Lott and Tom Daschle take center stage.
	NORMAN ORNSTEIN: Margaret, this is where there are now two crucial figures who will come to the floor – Trent Lott, the Senate Majority Leader and Tom Daschle, Senate Democratic leader, who’s also very close to President Clinton. Trent Lott will have a major role in determining whether the Senate now moves to a trial and then after that point reaches a different stage, or whether something else can happen. And the events of the next week or ten days are going to be very important in determining whether or not he makes the political judgment that maybe we should not hold a trial or short circuit in some fashion and – or whether we orchestrate a way of getting through this. MARK SHIELDS: First of all, Barney Frank – I think by consensus one of the smartest members of the House Judiciary Committee – seemed very upbeat. MARGARET WARNER: Practically declaring victory. MARK SHIELDS: Exactly. For having the House vote – the impeachment of the president. I think this becomes a test now of the sincerity of those on the other side. A vote for impeachment was a vote to convict Bill Clinton. I think that was the argument that was made; that was the argument that was agreed to. Now, if all of a sudden it becomes, well let the Senate do what it wants, then I think the motive of those who pushed so hard for impeachment are open to question and suspicion that they were really interested in impeaching Bill Clinton, to make him the first impeached president since Andrew Johnson, thus disabling, discrediting him, and this was a political, rather than a constitutional question. And I think that is open to doubt and resolution at this point. I thought when Chris John, the young Democrat from Louisiana, made the point today -- you have lost two of your own – after Bob Livingston – referring to Newt Gingrich and to Bob Livingston – and we have lost the bipartisan spirit, and Chad Edwards, the Democrat, asked when will this mindless cannibalism end – Bob Livingston made a statement today, which very few Republicans have made recently, and that is – I’m proud to serve in this institution – we’ve had an awful lot of people – it was Democrats a generation ago – it’s been Republicans recently running against – the House of Representatives as ethical eunuchs and moral lepers – would steal a hot stove – they’re terrible people, and, you know, it’s an awful place. And Bob Livingston said, I love, I’m proud to serve in this institution, and I respect every member; it was an interesting valedictory from a man who is facing such an enormous personal and political crisis from the height of power. I mean, the only constitutional office described in the entire – for the legislature – for the Congress – I mean, number 3 – MARGARET WARNER: The line of succession. MARK SHIELDS: And to leave – and to leave that – I mean, that is truly a dramatic, profound event. MARGARET WARNER: Stunning. Some further thoughts from Elizabeth and her panel.
	Do we have a crippled presidency?
	ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: From each my group briefly, your response to what you’ve just heard from Barney Frank, or what you just heard at the table, and then we’re going to talk about how you each see the consequences of this for the country. Yvonne. YVONNE SCRUGGS-LEFTWICH: With Barney Frank I see the poignancy of the loss in spite of his ability to be balanced but Mark Shields makes an excellent point. When I came here this morning, I thought of meltdown, of the institutions that represent the public interest of this country. And it just became molten lava in the course of the day. And I think we all have a lot of reconstructing and analysis to do because this is our government and we’ve got to make sure that steps are taken to reinforce it as we go forward. ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: Stuart. STUART TAYLOR: I think a big question as we go forward is: Do we have a crippled presidency, and does that play into everybody’s decision on what we should do about it, that public opinion – senior Democrats? Also, after all the talk of cannibalism, I saw some very impressive people out there today, both Democrats and Republicans in the House of Representatives. Speaker Livingston –elect-Livingston – of course – Minority Leader Gephardt, Tom Campbell, Jim Rogan, Charles Schumer –These are first-rate public servants, a lot of them, and I think amid all of the talk of how we degraded ourselves and have gone into the sewer – let’s remember that – some of them are pretty impressive. ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: David. DAVID GERGEN: Well, a couple of points. I hesitate to disagree with my friend, Mark Shields, but I do believe a number of Republicans, such as Henry Hyde and Bill McCollum, made the point that if the Senate decides on a censure, so be it; that’s not within the frame work for the House to decide, and they sent it to the Senate to resolve that issue. So if they now turn to censure in the Senate, I don’t think that, in effect, casts suspicions on what the House was up to on the House Republican side. In addition to all the other players we’ve said we need to keep an eye on, like the president in the next 24 to 48 hours, I think it will be very important to watch where Senate Democrats, such as Senator Lieberman, Senator, Moynihan, Senator Bob Kerrey from Nebraska, are. Do they wish to push forward for a trial, or do they wish to go to a compromise? They may hold the key to that question because they have spoken out, especially Senator Lieberman. We have heard less from Senator Moynihan, but I don’t think there’s any doubt about their body language, so we’ll have to wait and see where they come out, and that will have a great deal to do with where this goes.
	Consequences for the country.
	ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: Okay, Haynes, quickly on that, and then I want you to tell us what you think the consequences of this are. HAYNES JOHNSON: I disagree with David. I agreed with you so much about that – those Democrats now hold the key. The House focuses on the moderate Republicans, so called, that was the key to whether Mr. Clinton was going to be impeached. Now whether he survives rests in the hands of the Senate Democrats, particularly those three you’ve just named. You said about consequences? ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: Yes. What do you think the consequences are for the people of the United States? HAYNES JOHNSON: You know, we are at a weakened point in our politics right now. The political system has also been on trial here. The ability to reach compromised consensus – to move forward – this has been true for at least a generation. After the Civil War, we moved for a period of embittered politics where the Southerners were destitute and poor and angry at the Northerners for waving the bloody flag of that period, to say nothing of the racial relations and segregation that took its place in that period. That was a terrible period in our history, a period of scandal, by the way, and corruption, the Grant administration and so forth. This period – I agree with what Yvonne said earlier – and we’ve talked about before – the imprint on the public cynicism and disbelief in our political leaders – distrust in institutions – we vote less and less. We believe less and less. So this is a time where the whole American political system is on trial. And how all of them rise to that challenge, that’s our future. ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: Stuart. STUART TAYLOR: I agree with that, and there are so many causes. One of them always seems key to me: trust. And that’s in a way what all of this is about. I don’t know whether it was different. I think it was with Abraham Lincoln, but politicians so often – and this goes against what I said a minute ago – just won’t tell the truth, or they’ll shade it. That’s why President Clinton stands impeached. But the arguments that I heard coming from the Democratic side in this case and coming from the Republican side – often in the Iran Contra case – when the going gets tough, the politicians start lying. And I think the public sees that, and I hope at least that the public will reward politicians who come across as straight arrows who tell the truth and look a little bit more to that and a little bit less to whether they come with the prescribed set of ideological beliefs that happen to match the voters' immediate preferences. ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: And David. Go ahead, Yvonne. What do you think the consequences are? YVONNE SCRUGGS-LEFTWICH: Well, there are – I think there are two dimensions to governance. One, of course, is the political side, and the other, of course, is the public servant side, the people who run the government between the elections, and I’m concerned that the cannibalization of public – people in the public arena overall is going to continue to lower the standards for people who enter public service and is going to take our best and our brightest to other venues.
	The next generation: reluctant to go into politics.
	ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: Are you seeing that among your students? YVONNE SCRUGGS-LEFTWICH: I’m seeing it among students. And I told the story of this class of 21 graduate students leaving the Fellow Center for Government, University of Pennsylvania, most of the Rhodes scholars or Fulbrights who – only one of whom was going into public service and who explained that by saying, we’re not going to expose our families and ourselves to this kind of unrelenting attack and this venomous intention to get us just to have jobs that don’t have good perks, bad hours, and low pay. And I think we’re going to continue to see that, and I hope not, because I’m reminded of a quote I always use with my students from Rousseau from the "Social Contract," where he says as soon as public service ceases to be the chief concern of citizens, the fall of the state is not far off. And I certainly think that at this point there is a feeling that things may have dissembled; we’re coming apart at the center; and there is some concern, like there was after the impeachment of Johnson, that we don’t enter a period of great disorganization and hostility and balkanization, and that we continue to get good people to come and govern us. ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: David. DAVID GERGEN: Well, perhaps I could draw on history again, in this case Watergate. After the trauma of Watergate, two things happened which helped enormously: One was there was a sense in the country that for all the problems we’ve been through and all the divisions we’ve been through that the resolution of it was satisfying, that the court system worked, the Congress worked, even the press got kudos for that period. This so far has left us deeply polarized, so I think the question in the Senate in the next few weeks will be: Can the Senate help to bring closure to this in a way that leaves us all more satisfied with the outcome? That’s one. The second is that after Watergate, Gerald Ford came into office and was able in his early speeches, in his actions to begin a healing process. Here we’re going to be in a situation where we have the same president in office for probably two years. How do we heal with the same man in office in the aftermath of this? I think that’s going to be a real challenge for all of us. ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: Haynes, you’re writing a book about our period. HAYNES JOHNSON: Yes. ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: And about the divisions, cultural, political and all the other kinds of divisions that have rent this country for the past – what – 20 years – is that what your book’s about? HAYNES JOHNSON: Well, the ‘90s and beyond but – it’s also what we’re seeing – this is part of the text right here, what we’re talking about right now. ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: Yes. In what way? I mean, is this sort of the – is this emblematic? Is this the symbolic moment that shows these – these divisions that you’re writing about? HAYNES JOHNSON: I appreciate your opportunity to talk about my new book, but – ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: You’re not done with it yet, so we’re not selling. HAYNES JOHNSON: I haven’t even started in that period, but – look, we’re ending this century at the best time of the United States in its history if you look at it objectively, economically, scientifically, technologically. We’re at peace; we have no wars. Nobody’s threatening us. Saddam Hussein is not Goebbels and Goering or Hitler – the Pans Allegiance and so forth – in all these areas we are the exemplar of the world. What’s been missing for a generation now – the hollowness and destructiveness of our public life – on both sides – including the rapaciousness of the press, the destructive – so it is the Dickensian best and worse. And this challenge we’re going through right now is exactly going to tell us whether we’re up to what you’re talking about for not only the short term but the long term. I’m an optimistic, I mean, I think Americans have always risen to challenges when they face it, but I must say this has given – this is the whole text of the public side of the equation, and that’s still in jeopardy. YVONNE SCRUGGS-LEFTWICH: And the public’s participation in the culmination of this scenario I think is going to be critical. If the public feels foreclosed and if they feel that they’re being trivialized, then – HAYNES JOHNSON: Or the idea you don’t need a government – we’d all like to have no government. I don’t want to pay taxes and so forth, but the fact is that’s why we – we need each other to our future. ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: Well, thank you all very much for being with us all day today and most of yesterday.
	President Clinton tries to reclaim his presidency.
	MARGARET WARNER: All right. Back now just for some concluding thoughts. First of all, the Republicans right now are meeting in their conference, in their caucus up on the Hill to decide what to do in the wake of Mr. Livingston’s decision. Meanwhile, the Democrats are reportedly on their way just about there at the White House to meet with President Clinton, the Democratic leadership and their members. Then the president, it is said, may come out and say something publicly. If he does, Paul, what tone does he have to strike? PAUL GIGOT: I think he needs to strike a tone that can go to what Jim Leach called reclaiming the moral underpinnings of his presidency. The strategy the White House has tried – which has been to attack more often than not his opponents – blame it on Ken Starr – blame it on the Republicans – has not worked. It has now backfired and ended up in his impeachment. He has to show some respect for the institutions he’s going to be dealing with, particularly the Senate, and try to show some humility, and begin to work with members of both parties, Senators of both parties to see if we can get a resolution to this either short of trial, or in a trial. NORMAN ORNSTEIN: Margaret, I think the president has to recognize the shifting political and moral ground here. The argument had been that we had to have this impeachment to have a trial in the Senate, and now it’s going to be a firestorm call for resignation, led by Republicans, but including many people who aren’t Republicans, many in the press probably doing the same thing, and I think that has to be stopped in a hurry. I think he has to meet that head on without defiance but with a certain resoluteness; I think he has to acknowledge that this is a serious situation, and he has to avoid partisanship, or any sense of partisanship, even though Democratic leaders are going to this meeting at the White House, and I think that’s the tone, that’s the mood that this is – he knows how serious it is – how brave it is – and he intends to meet the challenge head on and cooperate completely. You know, we had one very important chapter in American history closed today, the 19th of December. Another one will close on January 6th, when the new Congress comes back and the Senate formally takes this up. What happens in this chapter is very, very important. And that’s why what the president says today will set some part of the tone. What happens to him now as we move towards the trial, including the tremendous pressure that’ll be out there to resign. The tone he takes as it will affect the Joe Liebermans of the Senate and his own Democrats and the Republicans – how we frame this in terms of what the Senate might do between now and then – how the public reacts to what might be a prolonged period of uncertainty – all of these were crucial things. Then on January 6th, we start at least the beginnings of a very significant final chapter in this, or at least one of the final chapters. MARK SHIELDS: This week we lost a gentle giant, Mo Udall of Arizona, a man who had laughter in his soul and steel in his character, and his candidacy for presidency was born in the aftermath of the 1974 impeachment because the public respect for the House as an institution made his candidacy for president plausible as a House leader. I – I’m sad to say I don’t see how any national candidacies being born from the process we just watched.
	Stemming the call for resignation.
	PAUL GIGOT: The biggest threat to the president right now is going to be the call for resignation. The people are going to argue that Richard Nixon spared the country a resignation by – and spared his party a trauma by resigning, and the president is – if he’s not going to resign himself, he’s going to have to try to go to the country and explain why he should stay in office and resist that call. MARK SHIELDS: Richard Nixon had six votes in the United States Senate when he resigned the presidency; Barry Goldwater, John Rhodes, Hugh Scott, the leaders of the Republican Party went to him and told him he was finis; it wasn’t an act of chivalry. He just got out before the moving company arrived. MARGARET WARNER: All right. And our moving company has arrived. Thank you all three very much, Norm, and Mark, and Paul. MARGARET WARNER: And this concludes our coverage of today’s historic proceedings in the House of Representatives. As I said, we’ll bring you the expected statement from the president later this afternoon, if it happens, and we’ll be back tonight on many public television stations with a one-hour summary of the debate. Please check your local listings for the time. Finally, we’ll see you online and on the NewsHour Monday evening with extensive reaction to and analysis of today’s impeachment of President Clinton. I’m Margaret Warner. Thank you and good afternoon.