Impeachment Inquiry OKd

For only the third time in the republic’s 210 years, the House opened a formal impeachment proceeding Thursday against the president of the United States, and its largely party-line vote signaled a rancorous investigation.

By a vote of 258 to 176, the House authorized its Judiciary Committee to investigate whether President Clinton committed “high crimes and misdemeanors”--the Constitution’s vague standard for impeachment--by committing perjury and obstructing justice in concealing his indiscretions with former White House intern Monica S. Lewinsky.

Not one of the 228 Republican members of the House voted against the resolution authorizing the investigation, and they brought with them only 31 Democrats, most of them conservatives.

By contrast, the House vote establishing an impeachment investigation of President Nixon nearly 25 years ago was 410 to 4.

Judiciary Committee Chairman Henry J. Hyde (R-Ill.) said it is his aim to have the inquiry completed by year’s end. But it could easily be broadened if independent counsel Kenneth W. Starr sends Congress additional evidence from his continuing investigation of Clinton.

At the White House, the president pledged his cooperation with the inquiry, even as his aides quickly condemned the House debate as “injected with politics.”

“I will do what I can to help ensure that this is constitutional, fair and timely,” Clinton promised during a session in the White House Cabinet Room.

But, he added, “it’s not in my hands. It is in the hands of the Congress and the people of this country and, ultimately, in the hands of God. There is nothing I can do.”

Gesturing with his right palm turned upward, Clinton said: “I have surrendered this. This is beyond my control.”

With the impeachment review likely to get underway after the Nov. 3 elections, it was clear Thursday that many of those Democrats who voted with the Republican majority did so because they fear a political backlash as they head into tight reelection contests.

But if they prevail in November, they are expected to return to their Democratic base and join what is likely to become an extraordinarily bitter struggle against Republicans over the remaining two years of Clinton’s second term.

After the vote, one Democratic staff aide on the Judiciary Committee said that members of his party likely will challenge the impeachment process every step of the way.

Lawmakers Pound Their Fists

Signs of the coming fury could be heard as both Democrats and Republicans stood in the uncharacteristically full House chamber (only one House member, Rep. Deborah Pryce of Ohio, did not vote, and only because her daughter was ill). Mindful of the dramatic moment, lawmakers pounded their fists, waved their arms and argued in tough, almost-always partisan language about how they believed the inquiry should proceed.

Impeachment is a solemn matter, they stressed, second only to declaring war. It is an event so sobering that Benjamin Franklin once called it the Constitution’s “alternative to assassination.”

More often than not, they harkened back to the ghosts of Congresses past, recalling the Founding Fathers at the nation’s birth and former Rep. Peter W. Rodino Jr. (D-N.J.), who presided over the House’s impeachment review in the Watergate scandal a generation ago.

“We’re not flying by the seat of our pants,” said Hyde, defending his decision to use the Watergate model as his guide for the investigation. “We’re riding on Peter Rodino’s shoulders.”

But Democrats argued that it was a rush to judgment. They demanded but did not get a limited inquiry. They warned that an open-ended investigation would open the gates for a Republican stampede through the myriad controversies that have dogged the Clinton presidency.

At one point, Rep. Gary L. Ackerman (D-N.Y.) climbed up from his seat and, speaking out of order, shouted into a microphone that the Republican proposal reminded him of a page from the old New England witch trials.

“I submit,” he said, “that after we adjourn, we move to Salem, a quaint village in Massachusetts whose history beckons us hence.”

Others were outright flippant. “This is clearly my saddest day as a member of this body,” said Rep. Peter Deutsch (D-Fla.), who then turned to his Republican counterparts. “They would impeach a ham sandwich,” he said. “That’s the reality of the situation.”

Speaking for the Republican leadership, Hyde announced after the vote that the inquiry officially will begin with staff lawyers researching the law, conducting closed-door depositions with witnesses and undertaking other initial spadework.

Tougher Road Seen in Senate

Full-blown public hearings are not expected until sometime after election day and nobody knows for sure who will make the witness list. If the inquiry leads to a House vote approving articles of impeachment against Clinton, the matter then would be sent to the Senate for trial. A two-thirds majority is required for conviction.

And, even if Republicans increase their 55-45 majority in the Senate in the November election, they probably would need substantial Democratic support to remove Clinton from office.

Hyde said that he had hoped at least 40 Democrats would vote in favor of the proposal, giving it a strong brace of bipartisanship.

But even Hyde, normally praised by both parties for his fairness, got caught up in the rush of the moment and declared “victory” at a post-vote news conference.

Asked later about his use of that word, he said that he did not recall saying it. Then he explained that he was not talking party politics. “It’s a victory for the process,” he maintained. “It’s a victory for the Constitution.”

White House spokesman Joe Lockhart said that the Republican oratory smacked of politics.

“This close to an election, with all the events we’ve seen over the last month, with all of the dumping of documents, release of videotapes . . . “ Lockhart said. “It just seems that this may have something to do with politics.”

Senior White House advisor Rahm Emanuel noted how far the two political sides have separated from each other in the month since the Starr report arrived on Capitol Hill.

“Weeks ago, everybody on both sides of the aisle was talking about fairness and bipartisanship,” he said. “That didn’t happen, and [Democrats] don’t think it will happen.”

The 31 Democrats who did break with their colleagues to support the impeachment inquiry included members of the party’s conservative bloc and lawmakers worried about not returning to Congress at all.

“I don’t think it’s purely based on political concerns,” said California Rep. Gary A. Condit (D-Ceres) one of the more right-leaning members of his party. “There is more going on than just survival.”

The vote was the only way he saw, Condit said, to put an end to a political scandal that has distracted official Washington from the nation’s business.

“I just thought it was a mistake not to move the process forward,” he said. “I don’t think you can bring this to a close without taking this step.”

But unlike Condit, who is expected to win reelection easily, many Democrats who backed the Judiciary Committee inquiry will be heading back home next week to fight for their political survival.

They include Reps. Charles W. Stenholm of Texas, Robert E. “Bud” Cramer Jr. of Alabama, Leonard L. Boswell of Iowa and Ellen O. Tauscher of Pleasanton, Calif. All appear on GOP hit lists.

“This was extremely hard for me, but I knew what I had to do,” said Rep. Carolyn McCarthy (D-N.Y.), a freshman in a tight race who voted for the inquiry but does not think Clinton should be removed from office.

Other vulnerable Democrats, however, voted against the inquiry, opting instead for what they considered the fairer, more limited approach offered by Democrats. For them, a potential campaign issue looms.

“I expect to get advice and criticism from the 600,000 people I represent,” said Rep. Brad Sherman (D-Sherman Oaks), who is in a competitive reelection contest against Republican Randy Hoffman, a San Fernando Valley businessman.

“This is obviously a divisive issue and I’m sure my constituents have different opinions,” Sherman said.

Democrats Point to Opinion Polls

Republican political strategists warned that the impeachment issue may well be on voters’ minds in November.

“A vote to sweep this under the rug is not going to be consistent with where most Americans are,” said Mary Crawford, spokeswoman for the Republican Congressional Campaign Committee. “But I can’t guess how this will play out.”

Democrats pointed out that public opinion polls continue to support Clinton and his performance in office.

“Voters,” warned Rep. Charles B. Rangel (D-N.Y.), wagging a finger at Republicans, “will be judging you on November the 3rd.”

On the House floor, Republicans were playing rough with their counterparts.

The Democrats wanted eight hours of total debate; they got two. In mocking that GOP decision, Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.) said: “We spent an hour and a half in debate yesterday just to name new post offices.”

The Democrats wanted an inquiry that included a set deadline and a mandate that did not go beyond the Lewinsky matter; they got neither.

The Democratic alternative fell on a vote of 236 to 198, with 10 Democrats joining Republicans.

At times, the Republican steamroller, with House Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.) making a rare appearance as moderator in the House chair, seemed to be roaring down Democratic aisles.

The question before the House was simple: whether an inquiry should be carried out to determine if “sufficient grounds exist” to impeach Clinton.

As Hyde put it: “The question asks itself: Shall we look further, or shall we look away?”

But the debate was at moments far from pedestrian.

“God help this nation if today we become a Congress of endless investigations,” warned Rep. Robert Wexler (D-Fla.).

“The global economy is crumbling and we’re talking about Monica Lewinsky. Saddam Hussein hides nuclear weapons and we’re talking about Monica Lewinsky,” Wexler said.

“Genocide wrecks Kosovo, and we’re talking about Monica Lewinsky. Children are crammed into classrooms and we’re talking about Monica Lewinsky. Families can’t pay their medical bills and were talking about Monica Lewinsky.

“God help this nation if we trivialize the Constitution of the United States. The president betrayed his wife. He did not betray his country. God help this nation if we fail to recognize the difference.”

Hyde acknowledged that the Clinton-Lewinsky affair is a tawdry matter. But he also stressed that the law must be upheld and that the Constitution demands an impeachment inquiry go forward.

“It’s an onerous, miserable, rotten duty,” he conceded. “But we have to do it or break faith with the people who sent us here.”

Times staff writer Elizabeth Shogren contributed to this story.

*

Video clips from the House debate, full text of the impeachment inquiry resolution and an informal survey of your views are on The Times’ Web site:

https://www.latimes.com/scandal

(BEGIN TEXT OF INFOBOX / INFOGRAPHIC)

Historic Vote

In a 258-176 vote Thursday, the House authorized an impeachment inquiry of President Clinton. He becomes the third chief executive in history to face the threat of being removd from office.

* House by Party

Republicans: 228

Democrats: 206

Independent: 1

Total: 435

* Voting yes

Republicans: 227

Democrats: 31

* Voting no

Democrats: 175

Independent: 1

Not voting: 1

* Democrats crossing the line

1. Leonard l. Boswell, Iowa

2. Gary A. Condit, Ceres, Calif.

3. Robert E. “Bud” Cramer Jr., Alabama

4. Pat Danner, Missouri

5. Bob Etheridge, North Carolina

6. Lane Evans, Illinois

7. Virgil H. Goode Jr., Virginia

8. Ralph M. Hall, Texas

9. Lee H. Hamilton, Indiana

10. Christopher John, Louisiana

11. Ron Kind, Wisconsin

12. Dennis J. Kucinich, Ohio

13. Nick Lampson, Texas

14. William O. Lipinsky, Illinois

15. Carolyn McCarthy, New York

16. Paul McHale, Pennsylvania

17. James H. Maloney, Connecticut

18. Mike McIntyre, North Carolina

19. David Minge, Minnesota

20. James P. Moran, Virginia

21. Colin C. Peterson, Minnesota

22. Owen B. Pickett, Virginia

23. Tim Roemer, Indiana

24. Norman Sisisky, Virginia

25. Ike Skelton, Missouri

26. John M. Spratt Jr., South Carolina

27. Charlie W. Stenholm, Texas

28. Ellen O. Tauscher, Pleasanton, Calif.

29. Gene Taylor, Mississippi

30. Jim Turner, Texas

31. Robert A. Weygand, Rhode Island

(BEGIN TEXT OF INFOBOX / INFOGRAPHIC)

DEMOCRATS

“The president betrayed his wife. He did not betray the country.”

--Rep. Robert Wexler of Florida

***

“Republicans want to do what they could not do in an election--defeat Bill Clinton.”

--Rep. John Lewis of Georgia

“Do we really want 2 more years of Monica Lewinsky? Two more years of Linda Tripp?”

--Rep. David Bonior of Michigan

REPUBLICANS

“What’s at stake is the rule of law. Even the president of the United States has no right to break the law.”

--Rep. F. James Sensenbrenner Jr. of Wisconsin

“I think it is now the time that we, perhaps, look at all of our children’s eyes for the strength that we need to go forward and to do the right thing. “

--Rep. Mary Bono of Palm Springs