House Now of Two Minds, Miles Apart

With the last major release of evidence from independent counsel Kenneth W. Starr now on the table, Congress this week faces critical decisions on impeachment at a time when partisan lines over President Clinton’s fate are hardening both in Washington and around the country.

In the 4,610 pages of grand jury testimony, documents and transcripts released Friday, the most important item may have been the one thing that was missing: any bombshell which would undermine the support in the polls that constitutes Clinton’s most formidable defense against removal from office.

Instead, like most major events in the nearly nine-month national melodrama over Clinton’s relationship with Monica S. Lewinsky, the disclosures raise uncomfortable questions for both the president and his pursuers--and appear more likely to reinforce than alter the division in attitudes that have marked the scandal since the outset. If anything, the blase reaction to the long-awaited release of Lewinsky’s taped telephone conversations with Linda Tripp--which evoked a collective shrug even in Washington--suggests how settled views on the controversy may be.

“The public has reached a very clear judgment, and that is unlikely to be changed by anything new that’s happened,” said Democratic pollster Mark Mellman.

That means the Republican majority in the House of Representatives this week must decide whether to authorize an impeachment inquiry in an atmosphere where public opinion is both stable and polarized--with most rank-and-file Republicans supporting impeachment but decisive majorities of both independents and Democrats opposed.

In the end, House Republicans are virtually certain to approve an impeachment inquiry this week. But the key question will be whether they can attract enough Democratic votes to prevent the White House from portraying the inquiry as a partisan vendetta against the president, which is the way that more than half of all Americans already view the controversy, according to one survey released last week.

Reversing that public perception may be more difficult after Friday’s release of evidence, which raises questions about Tripp’s motivations as she encouraged Lewinsky to make demands on Clinton that later became central counts in Starr’s case. The White House also argued Friday that the material raises questions about Starr’s fairness because it contains several snippets of testimony that weakened his case on various fronts--but were not directly quoted in his report to Congress.

On the other hand, this elephantine final compilation is likely to reinforce the conviction among conservatives that Clinton is morally unfit to serve in the nation’s highest office. It shows Clinton casually lying to his aides in the scandal’s first days. And in their conversations, Tripp and Lewinsky vividly express their uncorroborated belief that Clinton had affairs with a wide range of other women around the White House. Lewinsky believed the group was large enough to warrant a name: the “graduates.”

With the views of both Clinton critics and supporters solidifying--and no more evidence now due to be released that might shift the balance in public opinion--all signs point toward an acrimonious battle in Congress this week and probably for many months to come.

The congressional struggle begins Monday as the House Judiciary Committee opens debate on the proposal of Chairman Henry J. Hyde (R-Ill.) for an impeachment inquiry that would operate with no time limit and potentially range beyond Starr’s report to investigate a broad range of allegations against the president, such as his investment in the Whitewater real estate development. The committee is expected to approve such an inquiry on a party-line vote, setting the stage for a showdown when the full House votes, probably Friday, on whether to open an inquiry.

That vote could cast a long shadow over public impressions of the process. With a 10-seat majority, House Republicans can--and probably will--approve an open-ended investigation, with or without any votes from Democrats. But GOP aides understand that the inquiry is much more likely to have public credibility if it is launched with significant Democratic support. “Everything they have said about a partisan inquiry is destroyed in an afternoon if 25 or 50 Democrats vote for this thing,” insisted one top House GOP aide.

House Democratic leaders do not believe that the investigation will be seen as bipartisan if as few as 25 of their 206 members support it. But they agree that the key measure in the vote will be the number of Democrats supporting the GOP. That’s why, even though they have no hope of prevailing on the House floor, Democrats are working hard to rally their members behind an alternative resolution that would limit the impeachment investigation to the allegations in Starr’s report and require it to be concluded by Nov. 25.

The Democratic leadership’s hopes of getting maximum support for that alternative were buoyed late last week by the return of the party’s latest internal polling data, one senior aide said Friday.

Though the polls showed several Democratic challengers fading in their bids against Republican incumbents and a mixed picture in seats left vacant by retirements in either party, the surveys also showed Democratic incumbents generally solidifying their positions against Republican challengers--a trend that might make them more willing to risk supporting the Democratic alternative to the GOP resolution on impeachment, the aide said.

At the margin, Friday’s final disclosure of Starr evidence may also help Democratic leaders rally opposition to an extended impeachment inquiry.

Most important, the release of these final documents eases fear among party legislators that they might be blindsided later by a new revelation if they take a stand that appears to support the president. And the evidence also is bound to inflame suspicions in Democratic circles that the scandal was orchestrated by Tripp and her confidant, conservative book agent Lucianne Goldberg.

At several points during the fall of 1997, Tripp appears to be encouraging Lewinsky to take actions that would later raise legal jeopardy for Clinton. In one phone conversation, Tripp forcefully presses Lewinsky to push Clinton for help in finding a job in New York City.

“You have to offer him a solution,” Tripp insists. “You have to offer him a way out.”

“Right,” Lewinsky answers. “I understand that.”

“If you do that,” Tripp continues, “and offer a solution as in ‘I would like to be living in New York and gainfully employed by--I don’t know, say 1 December,’ whatever date you come up with. . . . I think he’d do it, because that offers him a good out.”

Notwithstanding such concerns, GOP strategist Ed Gillespie said that any questions about Tripp’s motivations are not likely to deter Republicans from pressing forward with the investigation--or, for that matter, to prevent several dozen Democrats from voting with them this week. “Everything they do in the White House is to make this not about Clinton,” Gillespie said. “It’s about Ken Starr. It’s about Linda Tripp. It’s about Newt Gingrich. But most people know it’s about Clinton.”

Still, an undercurrent of unease remains among House Republicans about proceeding with an impeachment inquiry centered solely on the allegations surrounding Clinton’s sexual relationship with Lewinsky. Though concerned about the polls showing resistance to impeachment, Republican strategists believe that they cannot turn off the process without risking a rebellion from their conservative base. That’s why there is virtually no chance of a negotiated deal, such as a vote to censure the president, before the November election.

Conversely, congressional Democrats are worried that a vote against an open-ended inquiry this week might alienate socially conservative swing voters by seeming to excuse Clinton’s behavior. Yet they face enormous pressure from polls showing as much as 90% of grass-roots Democrats opposing impeachment.

“There are Democrats who might think that the safe vote is to vote for an impeachment inquiry,” said Mellman. “But to vote for an inquiry is sticking your thumb in the eye of the Democratic base. In most districts, that’s the far riskier vote.”