What GMA wants she may not get

What she wants is pretty clear: She wants the impeachment complaint dismissed like yesterday but, in any case, before she leaves for the United Nations General Assembly this September.

She does not want to have to endure the embarrassment of explaining her predicament to other world leaders during the usual round of power cocktails in Manhattan’s chic hotels and trendy night spots. She’d rather tell them what a great job she’s been doing and why she deserves to be called one of the world’s powerful women.

In her scheduled meeting with old Georgetown chum, former US President Bill Clinton, she’d rather talk about weighty matters of international statecraft, and Hillary’s coming run for the presidency, than swap notes about how to deal with impeachment troglodytes in their respective Congresses.

These are among the things she wants, but the evidence is mounting that she won’t get what she wants. Even in the administration party, the numbers of those who are agonizing over the "credibility" and "public acceptability" of the expected dismissal of the impeachment complaint seem to be increasing.

For instance, the troops were supposed to get the complaint quickly dismissed for insufficiency in form and substance. Now they’re saying that no way any of the three complaints, be it Lozano’s, Lopez’s or the opposition’s magnum opus, will be thrown out for defects in form. Atty. Lozano’s complaint was apparently acknowledged but not verified (a formal legal distinction which drives non-lawyers up a wall and which we won’t get into), and Atty. Lopez’s was neither verified nor acknowledged.

That looked like a good opportunity to dismiss for insufficiency in form, a technical but no less legitimate ground. And since the House Justice Committee is making no bones about its determination to consider only the Lozano complaint – did you hear all those learned disquisitions at the last two hearings on why the opposition’s amended complaint is a new and entirely separate complaint? – there would be none left to consider and GMA would be home free.

Now, however, there are equally learned disquisitions on why these formal defects can be corrected by the simple expedient of asking the complainant to execute a proper verification. Result? Lozano’s complaint will be found sufficient in form.

As to sufficiency in substance, I had thought the majority would go to town and gang up on the Lozano complaint as being so "carelessly" written – I’m being diplomatic here – that sufficient facts were not stated to constitute an impeachable offense. I thought that was why they were mustering all those legal arguments to support the choice of the Lozano complaint to begin with. It was supposedly an easy target for rapid demolition.

Well, guess what? Now I’m hearing that some majority congressmen, concerned apparently about their place in history, are prepared to vote for the sufficiency of the Lozano complaint in form and substance. They will, in effect, accept the minority’s insistence that the approved impeachment rules say that the standard of substance is met "if there is a recital of facts constituting the offense charged and determinative of the jurisdiction of the (House Justice) committee." (Sec. 4)

At the point of inquiring into substance, the Committee does not have to decide whether there is "reasonable ground to believe that the wrongdoing charged has been committed based on the complaint and the evidence by the complainant," as required by the impeachment rules of the 12th Congress (Sec. 5). The Justice Committee of this Congress will assume the facts alleged to be true for purposes of finding substance.

This has all sorts of ominous implications for GMA’s dreams of leaving for New York City without a Damocles Sword hanging over her head. Those dreams could turn into recurring nightmares for her, and cause her to lose even more sleep than, I understand, she has become accustomed to losing.

Why? Elementary, my dear Watson. Once the Justice Committee finds the complaint to be sufficient in form and substance, the rules require that the proceedings move to what amounts to a preliminary investigation stage (Sections 5 through 8). Generally, this means the President will be given an opportunity to answer (or, presumably to add to the answer already filed by her counsel), the complainant may file a reply and the President may submit a rejoinder.

Together with their pleadings, the parties may file documentary evidence. The Committee will then determine if the complaint alleges sufficient grounds for impeachment. If the answer is no, the case will be dismissed. If yes, the Committee must conduct hearings where witnesses may be presented, examined and cross-examined by the members, without distinction as to full-fledged, aspiring or self-proclaimed lawyers.

The possibility of protracted public hearings cannot be attractive to GMA. Note that these are not even part of the Senate trial yet. Nor is the prospect of the Committee taking 60 session days, the period allowed under both the Constitution and the rules, to find probable cause.

Administration supporters, I am sure, would prefer that the case be dismissed once the pleadings to be filed, with the documentary evidence, are complete. This is far from certain. Once hearings begin, if they cannot be avoided, anything can happen. The minority would have more time to raid the ranks of the majority, and will make the most, media-wise, of whatever evidence, both testimonial and documentary, is submitted to the Committee. This is not a prescription for an early end to the crisis.

Although it seems clear that the minority does not have 79 votes at the moment, it is equally clear that they have not given up and remain convinced that the anti-impeachment forces are not as solid as they are made out to be. There is reason to give credence to the minority’s optimistic view.

However, the implication is that there are, for both the pro-ouster group and those quietly but uncomfortably sitting on the fence, more advantages to a longer process. Damaging as that may be to the country as a whole, the congressmen will always be able to excuse dilatoriness as patriotic responsibility.

The signals ought to be clear this coming week, when the House Justice Committee votes on the question of what complaint to consider. The very deferral of this vote was read as a signal of something amiss. We’ll soon know if GMA’s coming trip to the UN will be as glorious as the fall colors that should be in evidence then, or as ugly and stressful as a howling winter storm.