Let’s Not Drag This Out

The House Judiciary Committee took the first fateful step Monday evening on the road toward impeaching President Clinton, voting on straight party lines to open a formal inquiry. The resolution approved by the committee would permit a broad range of inquiry with no time limit.

Such initial signs indicate that political potholes without number lie ahead. Opening comments by each of the committee’s 37 members preceding the vote ranged from the encouragingly statesmanlike to the raucously partisan. It will be a challenge for Chairman Henry J. Hyde (R-Ill.) to keep the zealots in both parties under control, but it’s essential that he do so. The impeachment process, though inseparable from politics, is among the most solemn of constitutional responsibilities. It’s not just Clinton’s fate that depends on how that responsibility is met, but the credibility of Congress as well.

The Republicans think they have found as many as 15 potential impeachable offenses in what Clinton said and did as he tried to cover up his affair with Monica S. Lewinsky, four more than even the obsessively intrusive independent counsel Kenneth W. Starr was able to discover. The public had better start getting used to an unfamiliar word: misprision. It means a violation of official duty, in this case by the president. Defining certain of Clinton’s alleged crimes that way seems aimed at overcoming the perception that the charges against him stem wholly from private and non-impeachable sexual misconduct.

Hyde says he hopes things can be wrapped up by year’s end. We agree: The committee should move with all deliberate speed. How long might the hearings run? Our guess is that much depends on the results of next month’s elections and on the level of public interest. Barring unexpected revelations, the public could soon grow bored and resentful. The Republicans risk a political backlash if they stretch out the inquiry.

Meanwhile, ideas for an alternative to impeachment continue to be raised. Former President Gerald Ford has proposed that Clinton should stand before the House and receive “a harshly worded rebuke” as a way of accepting full responsibility for his actions. Would Clinton agree to such a public humiliation? Probably only if he appeared headed not just toward impeachment by the House, which is likely, but conviction by the Senate, which is less so. Ford’s central point in any event is that this divisive and sordid business not be dragged out to the detriment of the country. On that, thoughtful persons on both sides of the issue should be able to agree.