MAXIMUM TRENT

Lott’s witness problem was a dozen panicky Republican senators who’d grown more nervous as White House lawyers laid out their rebuttal of the case against Clinton. So, as a vote approached on witnesses last week, there weren’t 51 votes to call them. And without witnesses, the trial would come to a premature end, humiliating to Republicans. It didn’t, though, because of Lott. Through force of personality, he got all 55 Republicans on board, even Sen. Richard Shelby of Alabama, who had noisily declared his opposition to summoning witnesses.

This may sound like the routine work of a congressional leader. And it is. But Lott has done a lot more than simply foster GOP unity, and he’s done it unobtrusively but brilliantly. Step by step, Lott has kept an unpopular trial alive and moving to a final vote on two articles of impeachment. His only slip-up was briefly considering a truncated, one-week trial. He’s kept House managers reasonably satisfied. And he’s given the trial an aura of bipartisanship. Don’t sneer at this. It means the trial plays better with the public and the press. The White House and many Democrats would love for name-calling and partisan feuding to crowd out the serious business of the trial. Lott has kept this from happening. When Democrats wouldn’t agree to procedures for the final days of the trial, Senate minority leader Tom Daschle still praised Lott for trying to accommodate Democrats. Three weeks into the trial, polls showed Senate Democrats were losing favor, Republicans gaining.

Lott’s leadership has not always been obvious. He operates by building a consensus but never getting out in front of it. He’s a facilitator, not a point man — the opposite of Newt Gingrich. Lott learned from his initial misstep a month ago. He discovered that Republican unity could be mustered for a full trial — but only a step at a time. Once the case was spelled out by House managers, that “laid the base” for witnesses, a Lott aide said. Now, Lott hopes videotaped depositions from three witnesses will stir support for calling them to testify on the Senate floor. That, in turn, might create the need for still more witnesses — Betty Currie, Clinton, others.

Lott’s leadership rests heavily on his getting-along skills. He has a remarkable way with GOP senators. Many were dissatisfied with his unsteady leadership in 1998, but he’s well liked, so no one challenged him for majority leader. Now that seems the right decision. In the impeachment trial, Republican defections once seemed inevitable, and six or more of them could have shut down the proceedings if they sided with Democrats. Averting this was Lott’s top priority. He’s done everything except twist arms, which might backfire. He’s put Republican squishes on leadership committees examining some aspect of impeachment. Mostly, he’s schmoozed. “One of his great qualities is his patience and willingness to listen,” says Slade Gorton of Washington, one of Lott’s closest advisers. “He creates an atmosphere where nobody wants to let him down.” Gorton is a good example. He doesn’t think witnesses are needed, but he voted for calling them.

Of the three balls Lott is juggling — GOP unity, a smoothly moving trial, bipartisanship — the least critical is happy relations with Democrats. Yet that’s important to Lott, and not only because of the bad PR that would flow from the trial’s being seen as a partisan crusade by Republicans. While he moves the trial step by step, Lott plans several jumps ahead. Which is why a critical moment occurred when Democrat Robert Byrd of West Virginia moved to dismiss the case. Republicans were infuriated all the more when Byrd blabbed well past the 10-minute limit in the private Senate deliberations. But Lott kept them from launching an angry public attack on Byrd. Why? To preserve bipartisanship. Why also? In hopes that Byrd might be persuaded to vote later on so-called findings of fact that strongly condemn the president for lying under oath and trying to obstruct the Paula Jones trial.

For all his soft rhetoric, Lott is the moving force behind the findings of fact, which would affirm the House charges against Clinton. In effect, this would be the strongest possible censure, and it might attract the votes of Democrats who believe Clinton has committed offenses but not ones that “rise to the level” warranting removal from office. The beauty of the findings is that they match public opinion, condemning Clinton for breaking the law without ousting him. Lott first heard of the idea in December from his former aide, Rep. Chip Pickering of Mississippi. Around the same time, his top staffers discussed it with aides of Henry Hyde, who heads the House managers. Some of the managers like the idea. The White House loathes it. Lott hasn’t formally endorsed the proposal, but he’s formed a committee to look into it, thus keeping the idea afloat.

Here’s the real secret about Lott: He’s Maximum Trent. He’s for convicting the president for obstructing justice (Article II). If two-thirds of the Senate is not attainable for expulsion, he’s for putting together a majority in favor of that article. The rallying cry: “51 votes for Article II.” That would at least provide majority affirmation of the House’s case for impeachment. He may also push quietly for findings of fact. In the meantime, he’d like to see Clinton interrogated in the well of the Senate. Short of that, he’d be delighted to force the president to answer the 10 questions Lott submitted on January 25. Sample: “Is everything you testified to in the Jones deposition true?” Lott, in short, is for everything up to and including sending Bill and Hillary back to Little Rock. But he’s figured out the only way to get near this goal is incrementally. He may look tentative, but in this case at least, that’s what it takes to be an effective leader.

Fred Barnes is executive editor of THE WEEKLY STANDARD.