House Panel Now Debates the Fate of a President

A white-maned Republican congressman from suburban Chicago sitting in a high-backed chair will raise a wooden gavel this morning and pound the House Judiciary Committee into session.

Nothing less than the fate of a besieged president will be at stake.

Chairman Henry J. Hyde will lead a debate over a single, central question: Should a formal inquiry be opened into whether President Clinton, in an effort to cover up his sexual escapades with Monica S. Lewinsky, committed perjury and obstructed justice.

If first his committee and then the full House answer that question affirmatively, as both are expected to do this week, Hyde said Sunday that he hopes his committee could complete its investigation by New Year’s Day. As stipulated by the Constitution, a vote by the House to impeach Clinton for “high crimes and misdemeanors” would leave it to the Senate to try him.

Hyde also surprisingly announced on NBC-TV’s “Meet the Press” that “I don’t see a need” for calling Lewinsky to testify. Rather, he said, his committee could rely on her sworn testimony before the grand jury earlier this year.

To Hyde’s left will sit Rep. John Conyers Jr., a dapper, soft-spoken congressman from Detroit with slicked-back hair and a determination to see that Clinton is treated fairly and with the respect befitting his office. The senior Democrat on the Judiciary Committee, Conyers suggested Sunday that the panel complete its investigation by Thanksgiving.

More important, Conyers hopes to direct the spotlight away from the president and instead upon Clinton’s detractors, most notably House Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.) and independent counsel Kenneth W. Starr.

Conyers said he would rather call Starr than Lewinsky to testify to the committee. Appearing on the same program as Hyde, Conyers said: “Kenneth Starr has more explaining to do than any independent counsel in American history.”

Despite their sharp political differences, Conyers and Hyde agree that even if the full House approves articles of impeachment against the president, the Senate will not be able to muster the two-thirds majority needed to oust him from the White House.

Hyde said senators would probably not break party ranks, especially if public opinion polls continue to show Clinton receiving high marks for his job performance.

Showing Clinton the White House door, Hyde said, “would have to be done by the Senate in a bipartisan way.” He predicted that the Senate “won’t do that until the American people move.”

Conyers said the important point is not how the Senate might eventually vote but whether events are moving too fast for Clinton to receive a just hearing.

“The question is not whether Democrats will vote for it,” he said, “but whether we’ve got a fair proposal to begin one of the most serious proceedings that any of us have faced since 1974. And the answer, if I might, is no, we don’t.”

In 1974, the House Judiciary Committee approved three articles of impeachment against President Nixon in the Watergate scandal. Nixon resigned before the full House could vote on the issue, and his vice president, Gerald R. Ford, became president.

Ford joined the ranks Sunday of those who are looking for a way out of the current imbroglio. In an essay in Sunday’s New York Times, he wrote that, although he is not interested in “rescuing” Clinton, he is deeply concerned that the scandal is deflecting focus from more important government issues.

“I do care, passionately, about rescuing the country I love from further turmoil or uncertainty,” he wrote.

To that end, Ford proposed that Clinton stand in the well of the House and, before live television cameras, be subjected to a public scourging that would culminate in a vote to censure him.

“No spinning, no semantics, no evasiveness or blaming others for his plight,” Ford wrote. “Let all this be done without partisan exploitation or mean-spiritedness. Let it be dignified, honest, and above all, cleansing. The result, I believe, would be the first moment of majesty in an otherwise squalid year.”

At the White House, Special Counsel Gregory Craig did not reject the idea. Instead, Craig said Ford is “absolutely right” in suggesting that impeachment is not the proper punishment for Clinton’s errors.

Hyde said Ford’s idea, which “took me a little by surprise,” is unlikely to become reality. For one thing, he said, it would take a bipartisan vote in the House to begin a censure proceeding, and “I think that’s very unlikely.” For another, he added, “I think the president would not gladly suffer that humiliation.”

Conyers, noncommittal about the Ford plan, said the important thing is to bring the process to a quick end.

“This country should not be put through this political charade that Gingrich is cooking up merely for political advantage,” he said. “This is serious business.”

Once Hyde’s gavel slams onto the table, he and Conyers will open today’s historic hearing in the Rayburn House Office Building with 10-minute remarks. The committee’s other 35 members--20 Republicans and 15 Democrats--will follow with five-minute opening statements.

Next will come staff attorneys for the committee’s Republicans and Democrats, who for one hour each will lay out their cases for and against a formal inquiry.

The GOP staff is expected to argue that Clinton perjured himself when he denied having a sexual relationship with Lewinsky in his January deposition in the Paula Corbin Jones sexual harassment lawsuit.

It will also argue that he encouraged others to commit perjury and that he obstructed justice with such actions as arranging to hide gifts he had given Lewinsky and attempting to find a job for her.

The Democrats will maintain that Clinton has already admitted his moral failings and that his actions do not rise to the level of “high crimes and misdemeanors.”

It might be Tuesday or Wednesday before the committee votes whether to initiate a formal impeachment inquiry. First it will have to face some tough amendments to be offered by the Democrats, including a strict timetable of perhaps 30 days for any inquiry.

*

Times on the Web

* The complete text of the Starr documents released by the House Judiciary Committee is available on The Times’ Web site at: https://www.latimes.com/scandal