Washington Quiet Before Impeachment Crescendo

In 18 days or so, according to current plans, the House Judiciary Committee will drop the gavel on only the third formal impeachment inquiry of a U.S. president. Within a short time after that, in theory, the full House could be voting on articles of impeachment against President Clinton.

But the nation’s capital sure doesn’t seem to be in the throes of a historic moment.

The nerve center of the impeachment investigation, the first floor of the Ford House Office Building, is largely barren. The lawmakers who will lead the effort are back home, shaking hands with voters, riding in parades and extolling their accomplishments in town hall meetings.

“I’m not thinking about it until after the election,” said Rep. James E. Rogan (R-Glendale), a junior member of the committee.

With their bosses away, staff investigators continue to pore over the evidence compiled by independent counsel Kenneth W. Starr. But they have issued no subpoenas, questioned no witnesses and plotted no firm plans for the most momentous congressional proceedings since Watergate.

What is known about the hearings does not resemble Watergate at all: only a week or so long; few, if any, star witnesses; and little expectation of surprise evidence.

All this is beginning to raise the question: Is this the lull before the storm, or is impeachment fever fading before our eyes?

Those in charge of the investigation characterize the sleepy atmosphere as deceiving. The ghost-town aura on Capitol Hill will change dramatically, they say, when members of the Judiciary Committee are called back after election day to sort out whether Clinton perjured himself, obstructed justice or tampered with witnesses.

“We’re going over with a fine-toothed comb the report and the accompanying materials, looking for inconsistencies and unanswered questions,” said Sam Stratman, press secretary for committee Chairman Rep. Henry J. Hyde (R-Ill.). “We’re hard at work.”

But even if the entire committee hustles back to town as soon as the returns are in, its self-imposed year-end deadline leaves little time: Thirty-nine days if the committee bores down with full five-day weeks and disregards Thanksgiving, Hanukkah and Christmas.

“I am slowly moving to the position that this president is going to survive,” said Rep. Anne M. Northup of Kentucky, a Republican moderate who voted for the impeachment inquiry but does not believe the current evidence justifies impeachment.

400 Historians Warn of Harm to Presidency

Her view was buttressed Wednesday by 400 historians who issued a statement saying that impeaching Clinton for covering up his relationship with Monica S. Lewinsky could leave the presidency “permanently disfigured and diminished.”

“Although we do not condone President Clinton’s private behavior or his subsequent attempts to deceive,” the group’s statement read, “the current charges against him depart from what the Framers saw as grounds for impeachment.”

Former Rep. Peter W. Rodino Jr., a New Jersey Democrat frequently cited as a model of bipartisanship for his chairmanship of the Watergate hearings, also said this week that he does not believe enough evidence has arisen to warrant removing Clinton.

But Hyde is leaning in the other direction. He said this week that he believes Clinton committed perjury and thereby compromised his oath of office, which requires him to uphold the laws.

“The last thing I want to do is impeach the president,” Hyde told the Daily Herald, a suburban Chicago newspaper. “He was elected. He’s only got a couple years left. I am not a Clinton hater at all. . . . I just don’t know what happens to our concept of justice . . . but that’s what we’ll vote on.”

The hurry-up approach means the public, suspicious of impeachment from the start, may never hear firsthand from the key witnesses in the drama. During Watergate, public support for the ouster of President Nixon developed during long televised hearings and cross-examinations in the House and Senate--the opposite of what is being envisioned in this first-ever impeachment case under the independent counsel statute.

“The measure for impeachment has to be higher than just: ‘Is it a crime?’ ” Northup said. “It has to be high enough that you would reverse what the American people did in 1996 when they voted for him.”

Of course, the low-key atmosphere also stems from some Republicans’ discomfort with the investigation itself. With much of the public clearly not on the impeachment bandwagon, GOP strategists consider election day the critical next step in the process.

A big win for Republicans would give the inquiry momentum. A surprising loss would leave it tottering. Considered most likely are middle-of-the-road election returns that can be interpreted either way.

The uncertainty has proved to be a dilemma for committee Democrats and White House lawyers fighting the impeachment effort. They are eager to focus attention on questionable conduct by Starr, such as his camp’s early contact with attorneys involved in Paula Corbin Jones’ sexual harassment lawsuit against the president.

But some wonder how aggressively to go after Starr if doing so would fuel the flames of an inquiry that may be cooling on its own.

Still, Rep. John Conyers Jr. of Michigan, the panel’s ranking Democrat, wrote Starr earlier this week asking for documents to justify the expansion of his investigation to the Lewinsky affair, the decision to submit grand jury materials to Congress and other matters.

Materials Sought Are ‘Sensitive,’ Starr Says

Late Wednesday, Starr’s office released a letter in reply to Conyers’ request. “The materials you request are voluminous, and many are under active investigation or otherwise very sensitive,” wrote Deputy independent counsel Robert J. Bittman. He said the office would need until Monday to respond.

“They are looking for a fight,” Hyde said of the Democrats. “I expect some volatile hearings. They’ve got their fingernails dug in because the consequences are pretty serious.”

Committee Democrats are rock solid against impeachment, united in the belief that this is a sex case trumpeted as something far more serious. Republicans seem equally committed to the notion that Clinton lied under oath and that such conduct rises to the level of an impeachable offense.

Complicating the preparations is Starr’s vague suggestion that more boxes of evidence may appear on the House’s doorstep. “I can confirm at this time that matters continue to be under investigation and review by this office,” Starr told the committee in an Oct. 7 letter.

The next proceeding will be a Nov. 9 subcommittee hearing on the history of impeachment. But it is clear that neither side’s definition of “high crimes and misdemeanors” will be swayed by a panel of grey-bearded constitutional experts. Republicans plan to call experts already in their camp, and Democrats will do the same.

When he launched the inquiry, Hyde said repeatedly that a partisan slugfest could never overturn a presidential election. He said he would not be part of a witch hunt and would need Democratic support to proceed.

“Politics must be checked at the door, party affiliation must become secondary and America’s future must become our only concern,” he said last month.

But with the two sides of Hyde’s committee locked in, such nonpartisanship seems unlikely.

Still, impeachment unease among rank-and-file Republicans could mushroom to the point that GOP leaders feel compelled to interrupt the process. Hyde himself may get cold feet. Or the inquiry may regain its momentum--if not next month, then next year--and steam ahead toward a vote.

Times political writer Ronald Brownstein contributed to this story.