December 6, 1998

Impeachment Of Clinton Seems Likely, But Not Removal

The political kaleidoscope that is the House Judiciary Committee consideration of offenses by President Clinton gets one last turn this week before members focus on articles of impeachment.

Twists during the last ten days were dazzling but unenlightening.

Clinton returned his non-answer answers to the 81 stipulatory questions posed by Chairman Henry Hyde. The questionnaire was the usual time-saving device to jointly agree what was accepted as fact and what was denied.

The reply, essentially, was defacto fifth -- refusal to answer on grounds it might incriminate him. He stuck to his convoluted legalism that his guilt “depends on what the meaning of is, is.” He cites a statement by his lawyer, Bob Bennett, to the Paula Jones court that “there is (present tense) absolutely no sex of any kind in any manner, shape or form” with Monica Lewinsky. This is semantically true because at that point in time, Lewinsky had been (past tense) dumped. Clinton’s stonewalling was a dare to call contradictory witnesses and thereby push the inquiry into the next Congress with five less Republicans.

Hyde was tempted momentarily to call the bluff. He subpoenaed four witnesses in the Kathleen Willey sexual harassment charge. However, he backed off when Dem fat cat Nathan Landow, key to obstruction of justice, invoked the fifth amendment.

Landow’s sudden attack of galloping amnesia brought to a neat 120 the number of witnesses so afflicted -- or, conversely, who suddenly remembered urgent business out of the country. Then there was another flash in the tube last week. U.S. District Judge Norma Holloway Johnson allowed the committee a peek at attorney-general memos alleged to contain evidence of illegal fund raising by Clinton. This, also, was passed over as lacking corroboration.

Apparently, Hyde opted for a conclusion to the impeachment inquiry before Christmas. Such a strategy would be based on Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr’s referral in the Lewinsky matter.

The whole panoply is eerily reminiscent of the Watergate impeachment hearings against President Nixon 25 years ago -- only in reverse.

Those of us with elephantine memory recall that the pursuit of Nixon by Democrats was relentless and partisan. They never forgave him for convicting State Department darling Alger Hiss of communist spying The House Judiciary Committee, chaired by Peter Rodino, was comprised of 21 Democrats and 17 Republicans. The Senate Investigation Committee, chaired by San Ervin, relied on Special Prosecutor Archibald Cox to dig up Nixon-hating witnesses. For nine months of televised hearings, scores of witnesses were subpoenaed over Republican objections. The “smoking gun” then was audio tapes that all presidents since Franklin D. Roosevelt routinely taped of Oval Office conversations. Nixon tried to invoke “executive privilege” but gave up the tapes after the Supreme Court ordered it.

Clinton’s smoking gun was his semen stain on Lewinsky’s dress. DNA tests were irrefutable proof of sex -- whether “is” or “was.” His damaging tape, TV compatible, was produced for Starr’s grand jury. In that unprecedented colloquy, the president repeated for the second time under oath that he did not have sex in the Oval Office with the 22-year-old intern. She had sex with him.

The big difference between the Watergate and Whitewater hearings is that six Republicans in the House and five in the Senate approached the Nixon impeachment process objectively. Republican Sen. Howard Baker’s question -- “What did he know, and when did he know it?” -- was the bi-partisan, defining moment in the Watergate hearings. Democrats now, being unable to refute the facts, viciously attack Starr, Hyde and the process. Not a single Dem member has crossed the partisan line.

It is likely the Hyde committee will mirror another Watergate situate by reporting out three articles of impeachment. Nixon’s charges were distilled from 22 presidential infractions that included “lying to the people” and, gasp!, “using foul language.”

Clinton probably will be charged with perjury, witness tampering and obstruction of justice -- culled from 12 transgressions that included adultery, sexual harassment and soliciting foreign money for his political campaigns.

As in 1974, a few Republicans feel constrained to demonstrate their bi-partisanship by joining blue-dog Democrats in a proposal to “censure” Clinton and be done with the matter.

Nevertheless, in the final showdown the Judiciary committee of 20 Republicans and 16 Democrats will recommend impeachment by party-line vote. This will send the hot potato to the full House for an up-or-down vote to toss determination of guilt to the Senate.

Some House members will cross over party lines as a matter of conscience or to reflect voting patterns back home. At present count, impeachment will pass by as little as one vote; but the kaleidoscope configures a new pattern daily.

A trial in the Senate certainly would fail to remove Clinton from office -- the only penalty directed by the Constitution -- because a guilty verdict requires a super-majority of 67 votes from 100 senators.

Either way, Clinton will stay president, and we will deserve what we get -- or, is it, we will get what we deserve?

By Lindsey Williams, columnist for Sun Coast Media Group newspapers