The impeachment process is starting to get interesting.

And, as it unravels, it keeps changing.

After the House passed articles of impeachment - which lots of people said would never happen in the first place - there was talk of how there would never be a trial.

All the CNN and network TV talking heads and their paid experts were telling us that there would be some sort of deal for censure and the Senate would simply forego all this trial nonsense.

Then they told us, well, there will be a couple days for each side to present its case. After that there would be a vote. If two-thirds of the senators didn't vote to have a trial, then they'd would move to vote on censure.

Then they told us, well, there might be a trial after all, but it won't be much of a trial. It will only take a week or so and there won't be any witnesses.

Next they said, well, it looks like there will be a trial after all and maybe a couple witnesses might be called, but not Monica Lewinsky.

Now they say this could be a full-blown trial with a bunch of witnesses including Monica Lewinsky, Vernon Jordan and Betty Currie and it probably will take at least a month or so.

All of this in the not-too-distant past was labeled as a near impossibility by the experts.

And these guys are experts? Their predictions are worse than the weatherman's.

I guess what they forgot about is the pesky little fact that the procedure for all this is pretty much spelled out in the Constitution. U.S. senators, regardless of party, aren't too keen on subverting the Constitution.

They like to say they want to get this over with in a hurry. Senate Democratic leader Tom Daschle says that all sides must "put aside our partisan instincts' for the duration of the impeachment proceedings. At the same time, he said, "We must also set aside - until this matter is resolved - important legislative work on matters like education, health care, Medicare and Social Security.'

But that's not completely true. First of all, plenty of "important legislative work" can go on in the Senate, at least in committee, at the same time as the impeachment proceedings. And secondly, little if any legislation ever is brought to the floor in January or early February. That gives the Senate a window of opportunity to get rolling on the impeachment.

So Daschle is fibbing a little bit, but that's OK, I guess. He and his Senate colleagues are in a tough spot. It would be hard to sit in judgment on the President of the United States. Especially if the president was a member of your own party.

On the one hand, you want to stand on principle. On the other hand, you want to stand by the leader of your party. On the other hand (if you happen to have three hands) you have to worry about those poll numbers.

No, it wouldn't be fun to be a Democratic senator these days. Especially if you were a Democratic senator in 1989. That's when the Senate impeached Federal Judge Walter Nixon.

Way back then, Sen. Herb Kohl, a Democrat from Wisconsin, gave a powerful, impassioned speech for Nixon's removal on charges of perjury.

To make a long story short, Judge Nixon got some sort of good oil deal primarily because he was a federal judge. The judge promised the guy he dealt with to help him out if he ever could.

Just so happens, the guy's son gets busted on federal drug charges. So the judge puts in a good word for the kid with the prosecutor.

When the issue came up in front of an FBI agent and later before a federal grand jury, the judge said he had nothing to do with the kid's case, that he "never talked to anyone about the case."

It wasn't illegal for the judge to talk to the prosecutor about the kid's case. It just looked bad. But the judge got in hot water when he lied to the grand jury.

Judge Nixon argued that he did no harm by denying his discussion with the prosecutor since the discussion was not itself illegal.

But Kohl stated, "... Judge Nixon took an oath to tell the truth and the whole truth. As a grand jury witness, it was not for him to decide what would be material. This was for the grand jury to decide."

Interesting.

Also interesting is Kohl's opinion that the outcome of the kid's case didn't matter.

The judge noted that his conversation with the prosecutor didn't do any good. The kid ended up doing time for drug smuggling anyway.

Kohl noted, "But, of course, that's not the issue. We're here to decide whether Judge Nixon made false or misleading statements about his own actions." Kohl strongly suggested that Nixon had to be impeached because "he lied to the grand jury. He misled the grand jury. These acts are indisputably criminal and warrant impeachment."

The Senate removed Federal District Judge Walter Nixon from the bench for making "a false or misleading statement to a grand jury" by a vote of 89-8.

The Senate decided that Nixon should be removed even if his lie was immaterial. Even if his lie made no difference in the case in question. Even if what he lied about was perfectly legal.

They applied the highest standard. They impeached him simply because he made a "false or misleading statement to a grand jury."

Sen. Kohl is still in the Senate. So are 26 other Democrats who voted to remove Judge Nixon. Then Sen. Al Gore, now vice president, voted to remove Nixon.

In 1989, Judge Nixon was removed for the "high crime and misdemeanor" of lying to a federal grand jury. Many of these very same senators have taken an oath in the current proceedings "that in all things appertaining to the trial of the impeachment of William Jefferson Clinton, now pending, I will do impartial justice according to the Constitution and laws: so help me God."

How can they fulfill their oath to do "impartial justice" and not vote to remove President Clinton for exactly the same offense?

As I see it, the senators have three choices:

1. They can convict him and remove him from office.

2. They can acquit him and dismiss the case.

3. They can convict him but decide that perjury and obstruction of justice aren't "high crimes and misdemeanors."

The problem with number two is that Democrats, most notably former Rep. Charles Schumer, now a senator, conceded perjury. During the Judiciary Committee hearings, Schumer said, "The president lied in his testimony." Lots of Democrats admit that the president committed perjury. So how can they vote to acquit?

Their argument all along has been that perjury doesn't "rise to the level of high crimes and misdemeanors."

Which brings us to option three. But how can one argue in good conscience that Clinton's perjury isn't a high crime or misdemeanor? Just eight years ago a federal judge was removed for the same reason by many of the same senators.

I know the conventional wisdom is that there simply aren't enough votes in the Senate to remove the president from office.

But lots of senators are reminded of their votes in Judge Nixon's case. They must be wrestling with it.

I am not willing to predict that these senators will vote their conscience or stand on principle.

But if they do, they really have only one option, don't they? [[In-content Ad]]