Sen. Robert Byrd's, D-WV, hasty motion to dismiss the impeachment trial exudes a new form of hypocrisy on Capitol Hill. Only weeks ago Mr. Byrd was chastising the White House for tampering with the Senate jury and stood firm on his position that Clinton's trial would complete its rightful course. Now, this elderly senior statesman wants to cut short the trial and save his party's golden boy from constitutional accountability.

What happened to Sen. Byrd to evoke such a rapid reversal? Does Larry Flynt have the goods on him? Did the White House war room scare him? It is truly inexplicable how a man who brags about carrying a copy of The Constitution on him every day and has long been revered by his colleagues as a constitutional expert, now has so suddenly abandoned his previously principled position.

After watching the trial in the Senate gallery and on C-SPAN over the last two weeks, I saw the House impeachment managers present a solid case for conviction and removal. I witnessed a desperate White House defense team attack the prosecutors and offer no evidence to exonerate Clinton from perjury and obstruction of justice. And I viewed two days of softball questions-and-answers which were formatted more for a high school debate than an impeachment trial.

It is convincingly clear to me that witnesses must be called and that the Senate must vote up-or-down on the articles of impeachment. All past impeachment trials in our nation's history had witnesses testify, and all these trials ended with votes for acquittal or conviction. There were no exceptions for dismissal or censure. If the rule of law and the Constitution have any value on Capitol Hill today, then President Clinton's fate must be determined the same way.