For Both Sides, Deal Brings Sense of Relief

They may have failed two years ago in their drive to oust President Clinton from office, but Republicans in Congress claimed some measure of vindication Friday in the agreement he reached to avoid possible indictment for his conduct in the Monica S. Lewinsky scandal.

“The action taken today vindicates the House impeachment proceeding and reaffirms that our actions were in defense of the rule of law, rather than merely a political initiative,” said Rep. Henry J. Hyde (R-Ill.), the former chairman of the House Judiciary Committee who oversaw the impeachment proceedings.

Democrats scoffed at Hyde’s comments and similar remarks from other Republicans. They said Friday’s deal did not change their view that the Clinton case was a partisan witch hunt that turned up nothing they considered an impeachable offense.

The deal “is exactly a repudiation of the impeachment managers,” said Julian Epstein, chief Democratic counsel to the House Judiciary Committee.

Still, on both sides of the partisan divide, lawmakers welcomed the surprise agreement as a definitive end to a controversy that consumed Congress for months, left scars on the institution and altered the careers of many of those at the center of the impeachment drama.

“I think everybody is breathing a sigh of relief that [Clinton] and the country can finally put this entire unhappy episode behind us,” said former Rep. James E. Rogan (R-Glendale), who lost his House seat last fall after a campaign that turned partly on his role as a leading impeachment prosecutor.

Republicans were particularly glad the matter was resolved before George W. Bush’s inauguration today, sparing him the politically dicey question of whether to pardon Clinton. Some Republican activists had been urging Bush to begin his term by removing the threat of an indictment of Clinton, saying it would be an effective gesture of goodwill. But such a pardon undoubtedly would have angered other Bush supporters.

“The bottom line is, it would not have been good for Bush for this sideshow to be occurring,” said a top Republican strategist who requested anonymity. “The more our party can transition into being the party that proposes, not opposes, the better. It’s a critical transition.”

The immediate effect of Friday’s agreement was to steal attention from Bush’s inaugural festivities.

“If I was the president-elect, I would be a little upset that this rain came on my parade,” said Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.).

Rep. David Dreier (R-San Dimas) fumed. “Leave it to Bill Clinton to overshadow his successor. It’s vintage Clinton.”

It also cast a poignant shadow over the last full day of the Clinton presidency, which his supporters had hoped could end with a gracious celebration of his accomplishments, not a painful reminder of his failings.

“History will have to look at Bill Clinton in two ways,” said Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.), one of his most vocal defenders on the Judiciary Committee. “There are all his accomplishments in office. . . . But I’m angry at the president for giving the Republicans a target in all this.”

Although Clinton’s impeachment by the House in December 1998 and his subsequent Senate trial were deeply polarizing experiences for Congress, the controversy largely had receded with the passage of time. For some, Friday’s deal reopened many of the wounds of that searing experience.

“Republicans were driven by hatred and partisanship,” said Rep. Zoe Lofgren (D-San Jose), a member of the Judiciary Committee. “I think they still are.”

Others, however, made it clear that they were eager for an end to legal proceedings sparked by Clinton’s affair with Lewinsky.

Rep. Maxine Waters (D-Los Angeles), one of Clinton’s strongest defenders during the House impeachment hearings, was among those applauding the deal.

“It’s important to get this behind us and let the president leave office and go about his business--let him do his work--without the threat of indictment,” she said.