Senator Hatch apparently believes that it is consistent with integrity to choose to leave the trial with no outcome. But this is nonsense.

Why? Because one of the key elements of responsibility is accountability, particularly in our form of government. Elections don't mean anything if a record does not exist that allows us to hold our representatives accountable for what they do. Therefore, accountability and integrity go hand in hand in representative government. Suppose every vote in the Congress were secret, and we never knew how they were voting. How would we hold them accountable? They could go behind closed doors, cast their votes, and then come out and tell us whatever they wanted, because we wouldn't be able to know how the actual legislation compares with the public stands that are being taken by our representatives. We wouldn't be able to hold them accountable.

Senator Hatch is proposing a situation where nobody will be held accountable because the Senators will not be on record, since they will not have to cast a vote one way or another. Though the facts clearly demonstrate that the president is guilty, this proposal lets off the hook people who are part of the criminal conspiracy to cover up his guilt and let him escape its consequences -- starting with the Democrats in the Senate who have joined in a solid phalanx to support the criminal element that now dominates in their party.

Senator Hatch justifies his proposal by saying that there is no possibility of convicting Bill Clinton. Why is there no such possibility? Certainly not because he is innocent. He is guilty as sin, and this is clearly demonstrated by the record and acknowledged by high-level Democrats, including Senator Byrd among others. But the fact that he is guilty is being willfully deemed irrelevant because of considerations of power politics, partisan bigotry, gutlessness, and who knows what other tangled skein of motivations. The 45 Democrats are solidly saying they shall ignore the facts to stand with this criminal president. And now Senator "Escape" Hatch proposes to let them do that, with no accountability.

If a vote on guilt or innocence is not taken, those Democrats will be able to say later, "Well, I never voted to let him off the hook. The Republicans didn't let us take a vote. We were going to vote with integrity, but they wouldn't let us." They could lie, and lie, and lie. Why would anyone want to put the Democrats in a position where they don't have to be accountable for their willingness to be part of this criminal conspiracy? Why should we avoid a vote in which Republicans stand with integrity for the facts and the evidence that show this man to be guilty, while the Democrats -- without integrity or principle -- show their clear willingness to join in a conspiracy with the criminal element in their party by voting to let him escape a record of judgment? The Democrats should stand accountable before the people, and the Republicans ought to have enough decency and integrity to make sure that happens.

It is true that after a vote that fails to remove the president, the Democrats may go around saying, "that makes him innocent." But such a perception does not necessarily result from an acquittal. How many of us think that O.J. Simpson is innocent? What effect did the verdict in that trial have, for example, in the civil suits, where juries actually found that he had committed the crimes of which he was accused? An erroneous jury verdict in the Clinton impeachment trial need not encourage the opinion that the President is innocent, particularly because we have as much access to the facts and evidence as the people who will have taken the vote. That is one of the reasons that it was important that the facts and evidence be released, and that the record should be clear to the public, so that the Democrats can't say they know something we don't know. They don't. And we have a right to have an opinion which is critical of theirs, and to hold their lack of integrity accountable. But that demands that there be a vote.

Instead, Senator Hatch proposes that the Senate adjourn the trial with a simple statement that the President has committed perjury and obstruction of justice. Now, adjournment essentially amounts to doing nothing. So the senator's proposal is for the Senate to do nothing and state the reason for doing nothing. What reason shall the Senate give? That the president has committed all these crimes. So the Senate will state that it is doing nothing because the president has committed crimes.

Senator Hatch seeks to avoid combining a finding of fact with a vote of acquittal, because such a combination would be inconsistent. It sure would be, senator. For the Senate to vote a finding of fact that the president committed these acts, and then to acquit him, would be inconsistent, corrupt, and lacking in integrity. It would reveal the partiality, and bias, and perjury -- I use the word literally -- of the people who cast their votes to let him off the hook. Senators voting for acquittal would be revealing that they lied when they took the oath that they were going to judge the case in a fair and impartial way based on the facts and evidence.

Senator Hatch is basically saying, "and we wouldn't want that, would we? We wouldn't want a vote that revealed their inconsistency, their lack of integrity, their corruption, their lack of principle, their willingness to perjure themselves, their willingness to show no more respect for their oath than the president showed for his, would we?"

Why not, senator? As a citizen, I want to know if my senator lacks integrity. I suspect that my senators, Sarbanes and Mikulski, will lack integrity. They will vote to perjure themselves, in the literal sense of the term, meaning to forswear the oath that they took to judge this impartially on the facts. They swore an oath to that effect, and if they vote otherwise, I would like to see it. Senator Hatch apparently wants to have an outcome that hides this corruption and lack of integrity. He wants to come up with something that will screen those who are engaging in this corruption from the judgment of the voters.

Is this is the right way to proceed? One of the great problems in our society is the decay of our institutions, which are crumbling due to a lack of integrity often caused, in turn, because there is no accountability. And without accountability, responsibility erodes and actions cease to correspond even to minimal standards of integrity. Do we want to set a further national example of the path away from accountability?

From the point of view of the politicos, I can understand why this would be desirable. If you were a politician about to cast a vote that made you part of a conspiracy to cover up truth and prevent criminals from being brought to justice, and you had sworn to be fair and impartial, would you want to be held accountable for your vote? I don't think so.

So I can see why the politicos would find the proposal of Senator Hatch very attractive. It is the path of no accountability, allowing them to be corrupt but not be seen in their corruption, to act without integrity or principle without being seen to lack integrity and principle -- because at the end of the day they don't have to vote. It is a politician's dream, at least the kind of cheap politicos we seem to have these days. But will it advance the cause of governmental integrity?

The vote is imperative for us, the citizens. Because if we don't have that vote, we can't hold them accountable for what they do. And if we can't hold them accountable for what they do, then our vote is meaningless. Anything that deprives us of the record that we need to make conscientious judgments about the performance of our representatives devalues our vote, degrades our franchise, and thus harms our participation in American politics.

If I were sitting in the Senate right now, I would be eager and anxious to cast my vote to remove this president, and then to go before the people of my state to explain why that vote was not only good for, but absolutely necessary to the good and the future of this country. Apparently there is no such eagerness on the part of many of the people sitting in the Senate right now.

Even as a matter of political calculation on the part of the Republicans, the Hatch proposal is bad. Clinton bigots are freely throwing around the charge that the entire impeachment process is politically motivated. Meanwhile, the media tells us day after day after day what a huge political liability it is to have the trial, to continue the trial, and to vote to remove the president. But suppose that the Republicans stick to their guns and do what the facts warrant and the Constitution requires, despite the threats that it will harm them politically. What happens then to the argument that they are merely politically motivated?

Win or lose in the Senate vote, Republicans will be able to say that theirs is a party not of political expediency, but of integrity, because in the face of threats of dire political consequences they ignored the political calculations and did the right thing. It seems to me that this will be an instance of integrity which every decent-minded American will find more compelling than any allegiance to the corruption and depravity of the little man who now occupies the White House.

But the Hatch Escape of ducking a vote, on the other hand, will appear inevitably to validate the argument that Republicans are just acting out of political expediency.