Saturday, January 23, 1999 -- New York -- The Senate impeachment trial of President Clinton saw a second day of questions to both House Managers and President Clinton's legal team. And none of the questions much mattered -- all of the important maneuvering was happening outside the Senate chambers.

First came word this morning that the House Managers had sought and obtained the assistance of Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr in obtaining an emergency court ruling from Judge Norma Holloway Johnson ordering Monica Lewinsky to "allow herself to be debriefed by the House Managers, to be conducted by the Office of Independent Counsel if she so requests" or "forfeit her protections'' under the broad immunity deal she struck with the Independent Counsel. It was also learned that Lewinsky was already on her way back to Washington when the news broke.

This set off a firestorm from Senate Democrats -- which many pundits deemed an end to what little semblance of bipartisanship had remained in the deliberations.

In an impromptu news conference held just after the Senate's lunch break began, Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT) called upon Independent Counsel Kenneth W. Starr to resign for insinuating himself upon the Senate impeachment trial by becoming involved with the process by which Monica Lewinsky had been called to speak with the House Managers.

The cable news networks covered the remaining questioning, but cut in with more tidbits as the impeachment process seemed to careen out of control -- statements from the White House, Senators, House Managers and even Kenneth Starr.

At the end of the irrelevant day of questioning, a rapidly executed set of parliamentarian maneuvers ensued. House majority Leader Trent Lott managed to prevent Senator Tom Harkin (D-IA) from entering a motion for a procedural decision to Chief Justice William Rehnquist, over the vocal and strenuous objections of Harkin. In doing so, Lott merely heightened the drama -- and set up a dramatic situation and a race against the clock for Rehnquist to move.

Harkin's motion concerned Judge Norma Holloway Johnson's emergency decision earlier today; just after the Senate adjourned, Harkin told CNN that he feels that this move by the House Managers is illegal and unconstitutional. He added that despite his attempt to bring the issue to the floor of the Senate having been stopped by parliamentary procedure, he had sent a request in writing through one of Rehnquist's clerks asking him to act in his position as the presiding judge in the impeachment trial and issue an emergency override of Judge Johnson's decision. The clerk promised Harkin that it would be delivered.

And Senator Robert Byrd (D-WV) issued his second major press release in as many days -- an angry broadside at the House Managers for forcing the issue of witnesses with their gambit to debrief Lewinsky. Byrd has used his prestige and invested a good deal of political capital in attempting to craft a bipartisan way out of the mess -- a vote on dismissal as early as next Monday -- and his statement did little to conceal his rage at Hyde and his team for usurping what he (and reportedly a majority of Senators) see as a Senate prerogative.

So, as of the late afternoon following the rare Saturday Senate session, the impeachment process is a shambles, and Rehnquist is stuck with a potential time bomb on his hands. Will he deal with the situation by ordering a stay of Judge Johnson's decision? If he does, it could well defuse anger not only among Senate Democrat but a growing number of Republicans over Starr's suspect attempt to insinuate himself into the impeachment trial. It's not merely bad politics for the GOP, with the most extreme element of the party grandstanding over Lewinsky in an attempt to do more damage to Clinton; it's also a serious and unprecedented Constitutional question which merits immediate resolution.

And this decision could prove to be the single most important of the impeachment trial for Rehnquist, with powerful ramifications down the road. Rehnquist's dilemma is clear: a decision to act against Harkin's request -- or a failure to act at all -- could be interpreted, given Rehnquist's conservative bent and professional affiliations, as partisan move on the part of the Chief Justice. Combine a misstep by Rehnquist with the noxious and cynical political environment in the Beltway, the possibility of a shift in majority party in both houses of Congress in 2000, and the de facto lowering of the impeachment bar by the House of representatives and one may have all the elements necessary for the next high-profile impeachment: that of Rehnquist himself.

Given the volatility of the present situation, rule nothing out.

-- David J. Gonzo