GOP Defections Appear to Doom Impeachment Vote

Efforts to remove President Clinton from office appear all but doomed in the House of Representatives, with several Republican lawmakers now saying they would vote against impeachment and even more GOP members leaning toward a “nay” vote.

In recent interviews, eight House Republicans told The Times that, barring the discovery of damaging new evidence against the president, they would vote against impeachment. It would take only 11 Republican defections to keep articles of impeachment from going to the Senate, if House Democrats remain united behind the president.

Even if, as expected, a handful of Democrats break ranks and vote for impeachment, the Republican majority is narrow enough that GOP impeachment advocates would need to hold onto every possible Republican to succeed.

Yet there now are enough Republicans who say they are leaning against impeachment to put the GOP move to drive Clinton from office in serious danger. And if the number of doubters who have yet to declare their intentions reaches into the dozens, as some Republican vote-counters now maintain, the process bogs down completely.

“There are at least 50 Republicans who feel this matter has gone on for so long that it is leading nowhere,” said Rep. John Edward Porter of Illinois, one of the GOP lawmakers who has declared that he would vote against impeachment given current evidence.

“If you don’t have the votes for impeachment--and I don’t think they do--we should vote a resolution of censure,” Porter said.

Such compromises have been dismissed outright by Henry J. Hyde (R-Ill.), chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, who maintains that his panel’s job is to vote for or against impeachment based on the evidence.

Although independent counsel Kenneth W. Starr’s testimony Thursday was once going to be the beginning and the end of the committee’s inquiry, Hyde and fellow committee Republicans now seem to be expanding the witness list and the scope of their review--to matters well beyond Clinton’s effort to keep secret his affair with former White House intern Monica S. Lewinsky.

With Hyde’s self-imposed year-end deadline looming, he is facing a political conundrum: Even if, as expected, he successfully navigates articles of impeachment through his committee in coming weeks, the case may very well die on the House floor if all 435 members of the 105th Congress are convened next month to pass judgment.

The schism within the Republican Party is a hopeful sign for Democrats eager to censure the president and move on. But GOP hard-liners are fuming about the second thoughts within their ranks.

“It’s very frustrating to see my colleagues take such an irresponsible position: ‘Even though we haven’t seen all the evidence, we don’t think there’s enough evidence,’ ” said Rep. Bob Barr (R-Ga.), a strong advocate of impeachment. “How in the heck can they say the evidence isn’t there? We haven’t even presented all the evidence.”

For some of the Republicans who could vote “nay,” the mandate to oppose impeachment comes from the results of this month’s congressional elections, when GOP losses in the House--and the narrow reelection of many incumbents--were widely interpreted as taking the steam out of the drive to remove Clinton from office.

“It seems every day there’s less and less interest to go on with impeachment,” said Rep. Jack Quinn (R-N.Y.), who said that he would not vote to oust the president. “I don’t think that’s the message we heard from these last elections.”

Clinton’s Poll Figures Give Pause

Rep. E. Clay Shaw Jr. (R-Fla.) also said that he would “have some problems” with voting to remove Clinton from office because of his support in public opinion polls. Others argue that the evidence so far does not suggest that Clinton’s conduct meets the Constitution’s “high crimes and misdemeanors” standard for impeachment.

“It’s an offensive situation, but is it a high crime or misdemeanor?” said Rep. Christopher Shays (R-Conn.). “I’ve taken the position that it isn’t.”

Shays said that Starr’s testimony Thursday presented a more compelling case that Clinton obstructed justice, which forced him to take a second look at his position, but that he still does not think he will vote for impeachment.

Some members say that the charges Starr raises may in fact constitute grounds for impeachment but that they do not think it worth the agonizing process because of the near certainty that the Senate, where a two-thirds vote is required, would not convict Clinton.

That’s why Porter said he would not vote to impeach Clinton, even though he earlier had called for the president to resign over the Lewinsky matter.

Other lawmakers are torn between the politics and the ethics of the case. “I feel angst over the president’s conduct . . . and feel pretty strongly about the fact that a slap on the wrist sends a message that we don’t want to send,” said one Republican congressman who was leaning against voting for impeachment.

“But the stark political reality is this is a very unpopular thing to do,” he said. “We’re almost left in the position where in a perverse way you hope the thing implodes or some new decisive evidence comes out.”

Many Republicans would like to avoid voting on the matter altogether, because in many constituencies, it is a political loser no matter how they vote.

“It’s going to be a very difficult question,” said a House leadership aide. “If you’re a Republican and vote no, you upset your base. If you’re a Republican in a moderate district and vote for it, you’re going to upset the Democrats in your district.”

In a CNN/USA Today/Gallup opinion poll conducted Thursday night, 62% of those surveyed said that they would want their member of Congress to vote against impeaching the president.

While virtually all Republicans are anxious for the proceedings to come to an end--and many believe it is abundantly clear that the process will not result in removal of the president--no one is confident exactly how it will play out.

One possibility is that the Judiciary Committee would fail to report articles of impeachment. This would require at least three of the 21 Republicans on the committee to vote with all 16 Democrats. Among committee Republicans said to be weighing a possible “no” vote are Reps. Mary Bono of Palm Springs, James E. Rogan of Glendale, Asa Hutchinson of Arkansas and Lindsey O. Graham of South Carolina.

Bono, Rogan and Hutchinson have said that they are merely keeping their minds open until all the evidence is in. Graham said Friday that after hearing Starr’s testimony he would endorse impeachment based on existing facts.

But Graham practically begged the Clinton forces to present information that would allow him to change his mind. “Impeaching the president will be the hardest thing I’ll ever do,” he said.

Assuming that the committee does recommend articles of impeachment, which many predict, GOP leaders would face tough decisions.

Although the incoming speaker, Rep. Bob Livingston (R-La.), has tried to keep his hands off the process, he has made it clear he would like the issue to be settled before his term begins Jan. 6.

“I know Bob Livingston would love to start his tenure with an agenda rather than a scandal,” said Rep. W.J. “Billy” Tauzin (R-La.), a close ally of Livingston.

As it has appeared increasingly likely that the votes will not be there to pass an impeachment resolution on the House floor, a Democratic insider said that mid-level members of the Judiciary Committee have begun talking about a possible alternative to impeachment that might be reported from the committee.

“The car is hurtling off the cliff, so someone better grab the wheel,” this source said. “Censure is clearly the way out.”

Porter said he hopes the committee could approve a censure resolution to avoid outright defeat on the House floor.

Judiciary Panel ‘Has to Count Votes’

“This is a political process and the Judiciary Committee has to count votes,” said Porter. “To me, the worst thing that can happen is that they vote in the Judiciary Committee for articles of impeachment and they fail to be adopted on the floor of the House.”

But others said that a compromise is least likely to come from the Judiciary Committee because lawmakers there represent the extremes of their respective parties--and because many are skeptical of the constitutionality of censure as an alternative to impeachment.

To get around that argument, some Republicans advocate having the House pass articles of impeachment knowing full well they will die in the Senate--a procedure that they can portray as tantamount to censure.

Shaw suggested another approach: sending the Senate a resolution of impeachment that calls for Clinton’s censure, not his removal from office.

“That would be strongly supported,” Shaw said. “There is no way we are going to dismiss the president from office unless the American people change their attitude.”

Extensive video excerpts from Thursday’s House Judiciary Committee impeachment hearing and a discussion about the Starr testimony are on The Times’ Web site: https://www.latimes.com/scandal

* DASH QUITS: Sam Dash resigned his position as ethics advisor to Kenneth W. Starr. A21