Gore Weighs In on Senate Trial

WASHINGTON —  In a move that could anger some on Capitol Hill, Vice President Al Gore has begun consulting with Senate Democrats about President Clinton’s upcoming impeachment trial and is exploring a role for himself in the procedural disputes leading up to the event.

In an interview with The Times conducted Tuesday night, with publication restricted until today, Gore suggested that he might have to cast a tie-breaking vote in pretrial motions. Gore, whose only constitutional duty is to preside over the Senate, might be called on to break a tie vote, for instance, or to vote in such procedural matters as the admissibility of evidence.

Twice during a 40-minute interview, the vice president emphasized that his views are based on “questions of first impression” still being researched by his staff.

And, wary of admonitions to the White House by Sen. Robert C. Byrd (D-W.Va.) not to “tamper with this jury,” Gore, a former senator, stressed that he does not intend to “buttonhole” his former Senate colleagues because “that would not feel appropriate.”

On the other hand, Gore added, “if a senator who’s a close friend calls me up or comes to visit and asks me, ‘What do you think about this or that?’ I’m certainly going to feel free to communicate with them in full.”

Gore said he already has begun “consulting with my friends in the Senate--about how to consult in a situation like this.”

Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle (D-S.D.) confirmed that Gore has “indicated an interest in just talking with senators about matters.” But, mindful of a backlash, he added, “I think that’s all there’s been--very informal and no advocacy of a particular position.”

Still, one top Senate Republican reacted negatively on hearing of Gore’s conversations with senators. “I don’t think it is [proper],” Senate Majority Whip Don Nickles (R-Okla.) said before repeating three times Byrd’s warning to the White House not to try to sway senators, who will serve as jurors in a trial.

If Gore does cast votes, he would make history. During the nation’s only other presidential impeachment trial, of Andrew Johnson 130 years ago, there was no vice president. As a result, Gore said, “the precedents established by [Supreme Court] Chief Justice [Salmon] Chase probably do not--or may not--apply to the situation where there is a vice president.”

The fact that he is even contemplating a potential role in the impeachment process underscores the likelihood that bewildering and complex issues may surface that hinder the trial’s progress or influence its outcome.

Gore, who served as a senator from Tennessee for eight years before becoming vice president in 1993, also expressed his belief that the Senate will reach “a considered judgment” to end what he called “a hot flash of partisan extremism.”

On the eve of his annual holiday sojourn to his family farm in Carthage, Tenn., the vice president also said he is personally undeterred by the harsh political climate that culminated in Clinton’s impeachment on charges he lied under oath about an adulterous affair. Gore, expected to run for president in 2000, called public service “a very noble profession,” one he “cannot turn my back on.”

“I really enjoy the work immensely. I feel that I can make a great contribution,” Gore said.

Gore, who has been reading James Madison’s thoughts on partisanship in “The Federalist Papers,” urged politicians on both sides to “undertake strenuous affirmative efforts to build bridges across these partisan divides and tamp down the excessive partisanship and try to reassert the common values that bind us together as citizens of this country.”

As Clinton’s most dogged defender, Gore is regarded by many of his former Republican Senate colleagues as a partisan figure. Now, cast in the role of defending the president in the Monica S. Lewinsky scandal, he has become something of a lightning rod for Republican criticism.

Perhaps concerned that Gore’s remarks would only intensify those feelings, the vice president’s aides downplayed the significance of his comments the morning after his interview.

One top staffer said Gore “is trying to give as much deference as possible to the Senate and is trying to follow Senate protocol and procedures.”

A second added: “Nobody thinks it’s very likely that he gets to vote in a tie.”

Yet Michael J. Gerhardt, a William and Mary College law professor, believes Gore is right, that he may well get a chance to cast a vote.

“Where Senate impeachment rules don’t apply or are silent, the regular rules of the Senate apply. This means there may be certain procedural operations that are not clearly controlled by impeachment rules, where you’re going have to fall back on Senate rules,” said Gerhardt, author of “The Federal Impeachment Process.”

Daschle agreed. “If you get into questions or proceedings prior to reaching trial . . . the vice president obviously plays his traditional role” as the Senate’s presiding officer, who is empowered to break ties, he said.

The 1868 impeachment trial of Johnson was interrupted by a lengthy argument about Chase’s authority to rule on the admissibility of evidence. The Senate eventually concluded that the chief justice could rule on such matters--but that his decisions were subject to a majority vote of the Senate.

A second issue arose during trial when the Senate deadlocked at 24-24 over a procedural matter. Chase broke the tie and his vote was challenged, but the Senate voted 27-21 to back him.

“That precedent tells me the burden is on [Gore] to come up with a plausible interpretation that is more compelling and persuasive than the one that would suggest the chief justice gets to cast a deciding vote while in the presiding officer’s chair,” Gerhardt said.

But reflecting the lingering uncertainties over the vice president’s role, he added: “A lot of people are not exactly sure what the vice president can do. . . . I don’t think anybody knows for sure.”

Republican lobbyist Tom Korologos said Gore’s strategy could backfire.

“The White House has got to be careful how they do it,” he said.

Korologos’ words were underscored by Byrd, who issued a statement this week saying: “There must be no deal involving the White House or any entity beyond the current membership of the United States Senate.”