With early polls suggesting Americans would prefer a punishment of President Clinton short of impeachment, some top Democrats and Republicans on Sunday suggested he should receive at least a formal censure or reprimand in the wake of Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr’s harsh report to Congress.
Nevertheless, a Republican congressional official said it looks “increasingly likely” that the House will open a formal impeachment inquiry based on information presented in Starr’s report.
Such an inquiry could trigger a monthslong, methodical examination of the evidence, although it could end with a less severe form of punishment such as censure or rebuke.
Clinton sent his lawyers out on the Sunday television talk-show circuit, where they reiterated the claim that the president did not commit perjury in his Paula Jones lawsuit deposition or before a federal grand jury last month.
The assertions were met with skepticism, even disdain, by members of both parties who chided them as “hair-splitting.”
“There’s going to be some sort of sanction here,” said Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah), chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, who said he had a “very hard hitting, very good” telephone conversation with the president earlier in the day.
“I think in the days and months ahead you will find people talking about the middle option, that of a public rebuke for his personal behavior,” said Rep. David Bonior of Michigan, the second-ranking House Democrat.
However, at least for the time being, moves for censure are likely to meet with resistance from many Republicans who want to set the impeachment process in motion.
The House Judiciary Committee has begun a preliminary review of the evidence.
If the committee finds the evidence credible, it would ask the full House to trigger a formal inquiry.
The committee consists of 15 Republicans and 10 Democrats.
House Judiciary Committee Chairman Henry Hyde (R-Ill.) said he believed Congress should move forward with a formal impeachment inquiry.
“I must say I do. But I want to hear from everybody on the committee,” Hyde said.
If it proceeds down that road, the House inquiry could extend to numerous other issues involving alleged wrongdoing by Clinton, from Whitewater to his involvement in questionable campaign fundraising in 1996, according to House Majority Whip Tom DeLay (R-Texas).
More Top Picks Edgers
Rep. Ray LaHood (R-Ill.) said on WGN Radio, “This notion of censure is way, way, way too premature.”
Ironically, one of the strongest critiques of Clinton’s behavior came not from morning television shows but from the pulpit across the street from the White House.
At St. John’s Episcopal Church, where Clinton has occasionally worshiped and President George Bush was a regular, Rev. Luis Leon told more than 400 parishioners that after struggling with the matter for days he had concluded that Clinton no longer has “the moral authority to continue to lead the nation.”
Clinton did not attend services anywhere Sunday. He opted to conduct an array of business, including speaking by phone to French President Jacques Chirac. He heads to New York for Democratic Party fundraising Monday.
In a rarity, White House Counsel Charles Ruff and Clinton’s private attorney David Kendall appeared on NBC’s “Meet the Press” and ABC’s “This Week,” respectively.
Kendall contended that Clinton did not commit perjury in claiming he did not have a sexual relationship with Lewinsky during his Jones case deposition. Ruff called that deposition a “mess.”
“The questions that were asked were asked in a way that simply did not and could not, for any fair prosecutor, form the basis for a prosecution,” he said.
The attorneys’ posture angered some members of both parties on Capitol Hill.
“The president’s going to lose if they continue to do that,” said Sen. Bob Kerrey (D-Neb.). Hatch concurred, stating, “He is being very badly served with this legal hair-splitting.”
That sentiment was echoed by Rep. Lane Evans (D-Ill.), a congressman who is engaged in a tight re-election race and is emblematic of the kind of Democrats whose political future may be on the line if the scandal is mishandled.
“I really don’t know where these guys are coming from. It seems like it’s just the latest legal technicalities they’re relying on. That has got to stop,” Evans said.
Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott (R-Miss.) was more emphatic. “The White House is still in fight mode. That’s the attitude that’s going to lead to impeachment,” Lott said after a television appearance.
But Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) disagreed, noting that Starr’s impeachment referral is based on legally specific crimes such as perjury, subornation of perjury and obstruction of justice.
“They have to let the American people know there is a difference of opinion on these legal conclusions,” Durbin said on WGN Radio’s “Unconventional Wisdom.” “What the president’s side is doing is saying . . . honest lawyers can disagree.”
Ruff’s and Kendall’s appearances were notable to White House watchers since neither is known for liking such a forum. But the White House is seeking to press what it considers a tactical advantage, namely the fact that Starr and his aides are not taking to the same airwaves, leaving a vacuum the White House public-relations machine believes it can exploit.
At times, Ruff made a political, not legal, argument for the president. Clinton, he said “is trying to move his agenda forward. He’s worried about Social Security, he’s worried about peace in Northern Ireland. That’s where his mind is, that’s where his efforts are. There’s no reason for him to step aside.”
The many scenarios the White House is considering include dropping the argument that the president was telling the literal, if misleading, truth when denying under oath having sexual relations with Lewinsky and accepting a vote of censure, a presidential adviser said.
As they have throughout the Starr investigation, the president’s job-approval ratings remained strong, ranging from 59 percent to 67 percent, according to polls.
But the public has only begun to concentrate on the independent counsel’s findings. And impeachment hearings, likely to be televised live and heavily covered in the media, would have the potential to shift public opinion as new evidence is presented and arguments for and against are publicly aired.
Rep. John Shimkus (R-Ill.) said an inquiry by the Judiciary Committee might serve as “an education process” that would shift public opinion against the president and possibly bolster support for harsher sanctions, including impeachment.
LaHood agreed. “There’s 2,600 more pieces of information, whether they’re documents or videotapes or other evidence,” he said. “There may be some things disclosed in there that further discredit the president.”