Defense Says Clinton Acts Pale Next to Watergate

WASHINGTON —  Appearing before the House Judiciary Committee today in an effort to save President Clinton from impeachment, the White House will argue that his attempts to conceal an extramarital affair pale in comparison with Nixon’s abuse of power during Watergate.

In addition to arguing that Clinton’s conduct is not impeachable, the White House will drop what until now has been the primary focus of its strategy--attacks on independent counsel Kenneth W. Starr.

According to a list submitted to the committee Monday by White House lawyers, 14 professors, former members of the Watergate Judiciary Committee and attorneys--mostly Democrats--will testify on the president’s behalf in marathon hearings today and Wednesday.

Yet it appears all but certain that as soon as Friday the committee will approve at least one article of impeachment on a party-line vote. And with next week’s full House vote on impeachment currently too close to call, there was little indication that the White House’s late, somewhat academic defense of Clinton would sway many votes there.

A key outside advisor warned Monday that the only way the president can avoid being impeached by the House next week is to personally reach out to the 20 or so moderate Republicans who are open to voting against impeachment but will not likely be moved by lawyers, aides and experts.

“Those votes will only move if the president personally engages with those members,” Leon E. Panetta, chief of staff in Clinton’s first term, said in an interview. A former Democratic congressman from Carmel, Calif., Panetta said that he has had numerous conversations with Republican moderates about their concerns.

Judiciary Chairman Henry J. Hyde (R-Ill.), meanwhile, grumbled that the committee has heard enough from college professors and called for the White House to present a direct rebuttal of the facts, which he said he thinks merit impeachment.

Committee investigators have drafted three articles of impeachment--one accusing the president of perjury, another of obstruction of justice and a third of abuse of power.

One draft described by a Republican committee aide accuses Clinton of bringing “scandal and disrepute on the presidency and the administration of justice” and acting “contrary to his trust as president and subversive to the rule of law and constitutional government.”

The draft language says that Clinton’s actions have caused “manifest injury to the people of the United States.”

The committee is expected to vote on the articles Friday and Saturday.

And although the White House is continuing its promotion of an alternative to impeachment, such as an official reprimand, Hyde said Monday that he does not believe censure would be an appropriate punishment.

Further dimming the chances for a punishment short of impeachment, House Majority Whip Tom DeLay (R-Texas), one of Clinton’s leading critics, circulated a letter Monday arguing against censure or other alternative sanctions. The letter was co-signed by Rep. Christopher Shays of Connecticut, one of the handful of Republicans who have said that they would oppose impeachment.

The bleak outlook for a censure option was bad news for the White House because some moderate Republicans are likely to be less willing to vote against impeachment if they have no other way to show their displeasure with the president’s actions.

After a week of berating House Republicans, White House officials adopted a different tone as they outlined the case that they plan to make before the committee, the Congress and the American people.

White House Special Counsel Gregory B. Craig will kick off the two-day presentation by laying out the White House case, and Charles F.C. Ruff, counsel to the president, will wrap it up with a more lengthy presentation.

In between, a bevy of constitutional scholars, former members of the Judiciary Committee during the 1974 impeachment proceedings against Nixon, and lawyers involved in that process will argue that Clinton’s conduct, while wrong, does not meet the standard of impeachment, which the Constitution defines as treason and other high crimes and misdemeanors.

The target audience for the White House presentation is not the highly partisan committee but the 20 or so Republicans who might be persuaded to vote against impeachment when votes are cast on the floor next week.

Recent moves by the White House have disappointed members of that group, including Rep. Mark Foley (R-Fla.) who now says he is “fairly certain” that he will vote for impeachment.

“I wasn’t this convinced . . . a week ago, but I’ve seen time expand and no attempt to answer the charges,” Foley said.

Foley and others cited the legalistic answers to 81 questions that the president sent the committee the day after Thanksgiving as a key reason they are moving toward voting for impeachment.

Panetta and other advisors to the president said that the White House has to come up with some dramatic gesture to woo the moderates, particularly because they are under so much pressure from GOP leaders to vote for impeachment.

While Panetta said he has told White House aides that Clinton should make a personal appeal to each moderate, former White House strategist Rahm Emanuel said that the equation is a little different for each member, depending on the pressures of their districts and their positions in the Republican caucus.

“Each of these guys is caught in a whirlwind,” said Emanuel, who left the White House earlier this fall but remains an informal and active advisor. “You’ve got to help somebody caught in a cross current by building them a safe passage back to where they want to be,” he added in an interview.

Although some have suggested that the president make another public statement of contrition, Panetta warned: “I wouldn’t do it until you have that conversation with each Republican and ask: ‘What is it that you need in order to do the right thing?’ And by god, I’d listen to that very closely.”

White House officials said they are trying to find out what the moderates want, including personal meetings with the president.

“I’m not aware of them seeking that out,” said a senior political advisor. “Most members are waiting for two days of hearings to see what our lawyers have to say.”

Meanwhile, committee aides said that their drafts of impeachment articles likely will be revised throughout the week. The articles, modeled after those passed by the same panel during Watergate, use stern language to describe the actions of a president whom investigators are convinced clearly overstepped the law, aides said.

Standing before 20 cardboard boxes piled atop each other to symbolize Starr’s massive referral, Hyde said that the articles will remain in draft form until after the White House has an opportunity to dispute Starr’s allegations.

Calling the White House response so far “Shakespearean,” Hyde compared it to Macbeth’s famous line--”full of sound and fury signifying nothing.”

At a news conference of their own, committee Democrats criticized Hyde for not making public the proposed articles of impeachment before the White House presentation.

“We’ve had different versions of what the allegations are,” complained Rep. Robert C. Scott (D-Va.). “We’ve gotten titles to offenses but not the allegations. If we can get the allegations written down so we know what the allegations are, then we can respond.”

Others complained that Hyde appeared to be leaving it up to the White House to prove that Starr had not made the case for impeachment.

“The president has to prove his innocence,” said one committee member, Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.). “That’s upside down.”

*

Times staff writer Janet Hook contributed to this story.

*

Live video coverage of the House Judiciary Committee’s impeachment hearings is on The Times’ Web site: http://ukobiw.net/scandal

(BEGIN TEXT OF INFOBOX / INFOGRAPHIC)

Who Will Appear

Gregory B. Craig, assistant to the president and special counsel, will summarize the White House case in defense of President Clinton. The following witnesses will testify today and Wednesday before the House committee:

Panel #1: Historical Precedents and Constitutional Standards--Nicholas Katzenbach, former attorney general and undersecretary of state; Bruce Ackerman, professor of law and political science at Yale University; Sean Wilentz, professor of history and director of American studies at Princeton University; and Samuel H. Beer, emeritus professor at Harvard University.

Panel #2: Abuse of Power--Elizabeth Holtzman of New York, the Rev. Robert J. Drinan of Massachusetts and Wayne Owens of Utah, all former members of the House Judiciary Committee during the 1974 Watergate hearings.

Panel #3: How to Evaluate the Evidence--James Hamilton, an attorney on the Senate Watergate Committee, and Richard Ben-Veniste, former chief of the Watergate Task Force and chief minority counsel to the Senate Whitewater Committee.

Panel #4: Prosecutorial Standards for Obstruction of Justice and Perjury--Thomas P. Sullivan, a trial lawyer and former U.S. attorney; Richard J. Davis, an attorney and former task force leader for the Watergate Special Prosecution Force; Edward S.G. Dennis Jr., Philadelphia attorney and former high-ranking Justice Department official; William W. Taylor III, trial lawyer and former head of the American Bar Assn.’s criminal justice section; and Ronald Noble, associate law professor at New York University law school.