|
Hyde allows censure vote as White House issues rebuttal
Updated December 9, 1998
2:00 p.m. ET
WASHINGTON (Court TV) — Judiciary Committee Chairman Henry Hyde said he would allow a committee vote on censure while Republicans put the finishing touches today on proposed articles of impeachment against President Clinton.
"I think it's fair to have a vote on a resolution for censure," Hyde told reporters as he stepped outside the hearing room where the White House continued its two-day defense of the president.
Hyde also said he intends to talk to GOP colleagues in the House about the case against the president, but would not lobby them to support impeachment. The chairman said his message will be to "keep their powder dry" until they have all the facts.
White House counsel Charles Ruff will wrap up the president's defense before the committee Wednesday by alleging shortcomings in Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr's report on the Lewinsky affair.
The hearings played out as the White House seemed to be gaining modest ground in the effort to head off impeachment in the full House. Moderate Republicans Amo Houghton of New York and Christopher Shays of Connecticut said they would oppose impeachment.
White House aides hoped other moderate lawmakers would follow suit, emboldened, perhaps, by comments made by New York GOP Sen. Alfonse D'Amato on Tuesday that were critical of the drive to impeach.
D'Amato, however, lost his Senate seat to Rep. Charles Schumer, who currently sits on the Judiciary Committee, and will not get to present his arguments on the floor.
Hyde's decision to allow a vote on censure in committee was largely a gesture, since majority Republicans are certain to defeat it on a party-line vote. 21 Republicans and 16 Democrats sit on the committee; all major votes relating to impeachment matters have followed party lines so far.
At the same time, it leaves open the question of whether the House GOP leadership will give Democrats a vote on censure when the impeachment issue comes to the floor, as it is expected to do.
Inside the committee room, several White House witnesses continued to argue the case against impeachment. Among them was William Weld, a former moderate GOP governor of Massachusetts, who enjoyed a reputation as a tough crime fighter during an earlier career as a prosecutor.
"The most appropriate result is something other than removing this person from his office," said Weld, appearing before the committee as a witness for Clinton. But he said the situation "demands something more than merely censure."
Weld told the committee he had leaned toward impeachment when the Lewinsky matter first broke, but subsequently changed his mind. Weld said the international community seemed ready to forget the matter and carry on its business with Clinton. He said that showed that the president can still do his job.
"I was concerned that some international events that were happening around then were happening because of a perception of weakness at the core of the executive — of the U.S. government," Weld said.
"But what happens, you know, the week after I deliver myself of these wise sentiments? The president goes to the United Nations and gets a standing ovation. Then he goes into the budget negotiation with members of the opposite party and, by most accounts, gets, you know, better than half a loaf. Then he has the Wye agreements on the Middle East. So it appears to me that people are taking him seriously," he added.
Weld outlined a proposal that included a vote of censure combined with: a written report on Clinton's conduct; written acknowledgment of wrongdoing by the president; a fine paid by Clinton; and leaving open the possibility of criminal prosecution once Clinton leaves office.
Congress, however, can't legally fine the president.
The White House said Weld's proposal had not been cleared with the president in advance.
Weld was among five former federal prosecutors who testified today that the case against the president was too weak to be pursued.
If Clinton were a private citizen, the charges "would simply not be given serious consideration for prosecution"' said Thomas P. Sullivan, a former U.S. attorney from Illinois. If the president is not above the law, as he should not be, is he to be treated as below the law?"
The outcome of the committee's impeachment inquiry is not seriously in doubt: The majority Republicans are virtually certain to approve at least one article of impeachment by week's end, alleging perjury by the president in his efforts to conceal his relationship with Monica Lewinsky.
A second article of impeachment is also virtually certain to win approval, accusing Clinton of obstruction of justice in connection with independent counsel Kenneth Starr's probe.
Prospects are murkier for passage of a third proposed article, one accusing the president of abuse of power. Some Republicans, including Rep. George Gekas from Pennsylvania, have expressed reservations about basing an impeachment case on Clinton's decision to assert a variety of legal privileges in contesting Starr's investigation.
Clinton, who has kept his public focus this week trained elsewhere, paused amid a gathering of fellow Arkansans on Tuesday night to thank his pastor "for praying over us."
"God knows we need it," Clinton said, the closest he came to acknowledging the impeachment hearings.
White House press secretary Joe Lockhart said Wednesday that Clinton was pleased with the way his legal team has presented his case, even though the president hasn't been watching the hearings.
Lockhart ruled out cutting short Clinton's trip to the Middle East, scheduled to begin Saturday, to focus on impeachment as some outside advisers have urged. Lockhart also said he was not aware of any plans for the president to make another public apology, as committee members from both parties have urged Clinton to do.
A committee Democrat, Rep. Marty Meehan of Massachusetts, said Clinton should "address the nation one more time" to apologize for his conduct.
Committee Republicans left no doubt that neither a 184-page White House rebuttal nor expert witnesses who testified for Clinton were persuading them.
"I've been very disappointed today that we've had very little discussion of the actual facts of the case," said Rep. Charles Canady, R-Fla.
Tuesday, as James Hamilton and Richard Ben-Veniste, who both advised representatives during Watergate, testified before the committee, the White House released a 184-page summary document that rebuts the allegations by Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr.
Democratic Judiciary Committee members such as Jerrold Nadler, D-N.Y., and Robert Wexler, D-Fla., pointed to the document as evidence addressing the facts of the case. At the same time, Meehan pointed out that the Judiciary Committee also has never heard from any material witness during the impeachment hearings.
In the rebuttal, the White House argued that, contrary to Starr's claims, the president made no agreement with Lewinsky to lie under oath and did not attempt to influence the testimony of presidential secretary Betty Currie. The report also cited conflicts between the testimony of Clinton and Lewinsky and claimed that contradictory testimony does not necessarily indicate perjury.
The White House challenged the contention that Clinton orchestrated a scheme with Lewinsky to conceal gifts they exchanged and disputed the allegation that Clinton obstructed justice by trying to help Lewinsky find a job in New York to buy her silence or false testimony about their sexual relationship. The White House also denied that Clinton tried to influence the testimony of his secretary, Betty Currie, after the Jan. 17, 1998, Jones v. Clinton deposition.
Hyde said a preliminary review of the White House rebuttal "appears to contain no new evidence or challenge the truthfulness of any testimony the committee now possesses."
"What it includes is more legal hairsplitting and semantic gymnastics we have come to expect from this White House," Hyde said. "On page 77, we read: 'The term 'alone' is vague, unless a particular geographic space is identified.'"
Before Ruff began his statement, Ranking Democrat Conyers reiterated his objection to impeachment. "How can we justify considering using the rarely used [step of] impeachment if no ordinary citizen would be prosecuted based on these allegations."
Conyers also asked "that the American people not be muzzled in the all important issue of censure."
Court TV's Bryan Robinson, Aldina Vazao Kennedy and The Associated Press contributed to this story.
| 
Full Coverage