Plum Role in Impeachment Sours on Chairman Hyde

Months ago, House Judiciary Committee Chairman Henry J. Hyde jockeyed fiercely for the privilege of leading the impeachment inquiry against President Clinton. But now, with the long-awaited hearings due to begin Thursday, the honor has become an albatross.

The sex-and-lying scandal once considered so substantial it could topple the presidency has degenerated into a political dilemma for Republicans and a big headache for Hyde.

Death threats against the 74-year-old Illinois Republican have prompted a round-the-clock guard detail. His shambling, genial demeanor has given way to that of a cornered man. One chorus from his party shouts for full speed ahead; another screams to abandon ship.

“It’s a torture for him,” said Philip Corboy, a Chicago lawyer and close friend of Hyde who has known the congressman since they were 6. “He hates it. He’d rather not do it. I just talked to him, and I know he doesn’t relish it and doesn’t have a stomach for it. But somebody has to do it.”

Clearly stuck, Hyde tries valiantly to explain his impeachment process, using words that show him in the throes of powerful, conflicting impulses, wondering what lies ahead. At one moment he utters, “God, I’d like to forget all of this,” and in the next breath the deeply religious man is fervently declaring that “the rule of law” requires a thorough investigation of the president’s behavior.

Early on, Hyde offered statesmanlike declarations of bipartisanship. Then, midstream, he appeared to become just a humble cog in a machine. Last week, at a subcommittee hearing on the history of impeachment, he laid down the strong words of a steely-eyed prosecutor.

Swatting away election returns and public opinion polls as if they were so much minutiae, Hyde cited ancient texts like the Magna Carta; contrasted Clinton’s conduct with that of Sir Thomas More, who was beheaded for refusing to take a false oath; and recalled the stewardship of his Watergate counterpart, former Rep. Peter W. Rodino Jr. of New Jersey, whose portrait hangs a few feet from his own in the committee room.

“We are here because circumstances and our Constitution have thrust upon us an onerous duty--one that requires us to summon the courage and the means to defend the rule of law,” Hyde told his colleagues at the launch of the process.

“Please don’t forget, when all the distractions and definitions have been pronounced, at the end of it all, we are about one mighty task: to vindicate the rule of law.”

But Hyde was unable to deliver on his early promises of bipartisanship, and his subsequent efforts to acquit his party with a high-minded approach to the impeachment task have been undermined both by the hotblooded rhetoric from some of his Republican committee members and the postelection behind-the-scenes fretting underway in GOP circles.

Some Republicans now wonder if the impeachment process is doing more damage to the accusers than the accused.

“What I think is best for the country is probably that we find some alternative other than dragging it through the impeachment process but I want to hear from Henry,” said Rep. W.J. “Billy” Tauzin (R-La.).

Gingrich to Defer to Hyde, His Successor

With a growing number of lawmakers seeking a way out, the pressure on Hyde ratchets up even more. Outgoing House Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.) intends to defer to Hyde and his successor on how to handle the matter, according to aides.

So far, heir apparent Bob Livingston (R-La.), who would not officially take over the House until the new Congress convenes in January, has appeared unwilling to grab the reins.

Asked during a television interview last week how he would deal with the dicey matter, Livingston did what everyone else seems to be doing: tossed the hot potato at Hyde.

With his colleagues watching warily, the chairman marches on.

“I think Hyde believes that this is the best way to proceed, going forward no matter what, but he’s certainly not helping the new speaker and he’s certainly not helping his party,” said Thomas Mann, a congressional analyst at the Brookings Institution. “It’s hard to say nice things about Henry Hyde’s handling of this.”

For his part, Hyde is clearly uncomfortable with some of his colleagues’ attempts to magically make the matter go away, like a piece of legislation that can be summarily shelved.

Asked again and again in recent months whether he might strike a deal short of impeachment, Hyde portrays his hands as tied by both the Constitution and his pay grade as a mere committee chairman.

“Our responsibility is simply to impeach or not to impeach,” he told reporters just before the election. “That’s it.”

How such an impeachment vote will turn out, however, neither Hyde nor anybody else is certain.

The complexion of the case has changed dramatically since spring, when Hyde’s fellow committee chairmen were circling like sharks for a piece of the impending impeachment action.

Gingrich initially had considered forming a small task force of powerful senior lawmakers to handle impeachment, dividing the politically sensitive task among Hyde and other respected veterans.

But Hyde objected, arguing that the matter ought to proceed through the House Judiciary Committee, just as it did during the impeachment of Richard Nixon. He got the job.

Pressure Began Almost Instantly

Public pressure began almost instantly, from the sometimes-fuming e-mails, letters and telephone calls that inundated his offices in Washington and Chicago to the press pack that trailed him in restaurants, hallways and anywhere else he might offer up a quote.

The criticism comes from all sides.

There are conservatives who have questioned his early reluctance to even utter the “I-word” and his recent decision to scale back hearings to one major witness: independent counsel Kenneth W. Starr.

“I’m very skeptical of Henry Hyde,” complained Larry Klayman, whose Judicial Watch organization has been the most hard-nosed of Clinton critics. “The head of the Judiciary Committee shouldn’t be ambivalent about impeachment hearings. When you get on the dance floor, as the saying goes, you either dance or sit down.”

Mostly, however, the heat has come from Clinton backers certain that Hyde and his fellow Republicans are engaged in a witch hunt.

Death threats prompted Hyde to request a security detail from the Capitol Police, who said that threats often increase during controversial proceedings but declined to specify the nature of the warnings to Hyde. Officers now shadow him wherever he goes.

During one dark moment in September, Hyde offered to walk away from it all.

That came after the Internet magazine Salon exposed an extramarital affair that Hyde had carried on in the late 1960s with a Chicago-area woman. Clearly embarrassed, Hyde quietly offered his resignation to Gingrich, who quickly rejected it.

Corboy, a classmate of Hyde’s from grammar school all the way to law school, said his recent conversations with his friend have convinced him that the chairman would not be upset if his colleagues ultimately decide against impeachment.

“He wants to do what’s right,” Corboy said. “I don’t think he’s concerned about losing or winning. It would not make him mad if the president were not impeached in the end.”

Hyde’s aides make clear how seriously their boss views the allegations against Clinton. But they agree that Hyde has not decided how he will vote.

“Henry Hyde can’t tell you today what the outcome will ultimately be,” said Sam Stratman, the congressman’s press secretary. “The process will move forward over the next six or seven weeks. Let’s sit back, take a deep breath and let the process work itself out.”

*

Times staff writer Janet Hook contributed to this story.