After nearly 13 hours of bitter exchanges on Day 2 of the Senate impeachment trial, Chief Justice John Roberts, in measured tones, urged House managers and White House lawyers to choose better words.
“I think it is appropriate at this point for me to admonish both the House managers and the president’s counsel in equal terms to remember that they are addressing the world’s greatest deliberative body. One reason it has earned that title is because its members avoid speaking in a manner and using language that is not conducive to civil discourse…. I do think that those addressing the Senate should remember where they are.”
If you weren’t required to watch these proceedings long into the evening, as are 100 US senators, you might have missed the chief justice’s statement and the searing personal attacks leading up to it. House managers hurled toxic terms — corrupt, treacherous, indefensible, shameful, liar — not just at the president but also at GOP senators deemed likely to acquit him. The president’s lawyers rebuked House managers scornfully, by name, and even to their faces — a breach of Senate decorum. Closing in on 1 a.m., the chief justice chose to admonish both sides, “in equal terms.”
Some accounts of his statement omit the last line: “…those addressing the Senate should remember where they are.” It’s hard to stand in the US Senate and not notice the gravitas in all that history, marble, and gilt. Senators often invoke this sense of place to ease partisan tensions.
On Dec. 20, 1995, Robert C. Byrd, a longtime Democratic leader, storied orator and self-taught Senate historian, took to the Senate floor to rebuke a freshman GOP senator who had referred to President Clinton during a budget debate as “this guy.” The president and other senators are “not going to tell the truth,” he added. In January of that year, Republicans had taken back control of the House for the first time in 40 years. The shock and awe of that win sharply increased partisan conflict in both bodies.
“Can we no longer engage in reasoned, even intense, partisan exchanges in the Senate without imputing evil motives to other senators, without castigating the personal integrity of our colleagues? Such utterly reckless statements can only poison the waters of the well of mutual respect and comity which must prevail in this body if our two political parties are to work together in the best interests of the people whom we serve,.
“There is enough controversy in the natural course of things in this bitter year, without making statements that stir even greater controversy and divisiveness,” Senator Byrd said.
By the time the Senate took up the House articles of impeachment on Jan. 7, 1999, leaders on both sides of the aisle feared that the trial could tear the Senate apart. The public didn’t want the president to be impeached, The House impeachment deliberations had been bitter, distinctly partisan and salacious. Senate leaders Trent Lott (R) of Mississippi and Tom Daschle (D) of South Dakota worried that the Senate trial could be worse. House managers wanted to call at least 15 witnesses for the trial. Neither leader was eager to see former White House intern Monica Lewinsky testify on the floor of the Senate to what passed between her and the president. In an 11th hour bid to avoid a debacle, senators met behind closed doors in the historic Old Senate Chamber — with no journalists, microphones, or television cameras allowed. It’s a more intimate space, steeped in history. Some present that day say they thought about Daniel Webster, Henry Clay, and John C. Calhoun holding forth in that chamber.
There are many accounts of what happened in that January 8 meeting in memoirs and interviews — all remarkably consistent on how a sense of place and respect for Senate tradition and reputation changed an intensely partisan dynamic. Senators walked in deeply divided how to proceed and walked out with a commitment to a bipartisan approach that, with further work, passed the Senate 100 to 0. The House managers had their vote on witnesses, which failed. In the end, three witnesses, including Ms. Lewinsky, were deposed off site.
Peter Baker’s “The Breach: Inside the Impeachment and Trial of William Jefferson Clinton” (2000) sums up the change of thought in that meeting as follows:
“…they were talking with each other as colleagues and friends thrown into a desperate situation and searching together for a way out. Without the amplification of a sound system, without the omnipresent television cameras, without reporters scribbling down every word, the senators for once saw themselves as statesmen seeking the common good rather than as strategists obsessed with the gamesmanship of the moment..” (Page 291)
Once again, US senators face tough decisions over whether and how to call witnesses in a presidential impeachment trial. The reputation of the Senate, as well as the fate of a presidency, hang on how those issues are resolved. Civility helps.
Is it time to dust off the Old Senate Chamber?
