Defense Can’t Stave Off Release of 4 Articles of Impeachment

WASHINGTON —  The House Judiciary Committee on Wednesday released four sternly worded articles of impeachment recommending Bill Clinton’s removal as 42nd president of the United States even as the top White House lawyer, in a stone-faced final defense, urged Republicans to put the brakes on a “misguided” process.

“William Jefferson Clinton . . . warrants impeachment and trial, and removal from office and disqualification to hold and enjoy any office of honor, trust or profit under the United States,” committee investigators wrote after each of the four accusations.

The charges themselves--two counts of perjury, one count of obstruction of justice and one count of abuse of power--largely overlap with those proposed by independent counsel Kenneth W. Starr in the lengthy report he submitted to the House on Sept. 9.

The actions that some Democrats have downplayed merely as efforts by Clinton to conceal a sexual affair are portrayed in somber language by the articles of impeachment:

“In all of this, William Jefferson Clinton has undermined the integrity of his office, has brought disrepute on the presidency, has betrayed his trust as president and has acted in a manner subversive of the rule of law and justice to the manifest injury of the people of the United States.”

Committee Democrats countered by releasing a censure proposal that says that Clinton “by his conduct has brought upon himself and fully deserves the censure and condemnation of the American people and the Congress; and by his signature on this joint resolution, the president acknowledges this censure.”

The articles prompted an outcry from committee Democrats and White House officials, who saw the detailed charges for the first time Wednesday afternoon.

“Despite the unfairness of the timing of the charges . . . we now say with certainty that nothing in the record, nothing in the facts or the law or the Constitution or these charges compels the Congress to take the solemn step of impeaching and removing the president of the United States,” said Jim Kennedy, spokesman for the White House counsel’s office.

Rep. Rick Boucher of Virginia, one of four Democratic co-sponsors of the censure proposal, said that the punishment could be ratcheted up to include a fine or perhaps an appearance by the president on Capitol Hill to allow for a face-to-face admonishment of him by lawmakers.

“We might arrive at an agreement where the president might make a voluntary payment,” Boucher said. “Or an agreement where the president would come to Capitol Hill to personally take this censure.”

The committee’s GOP majority accuses the president of these offenses:

* Providing “perjurious, false and misleading testimony” to the federal grand jury about the nature of his relationship with former White House intern Monica S. Lewinsky, his alleged efforts to influence the testimony of witnesses and impede the discovery of evidence in the Paula Corbin Jones sexual harassment lawsuit as well as the “false and misleading statements” he made and permitted his attorney to make in the Jones case deposition. This is widely considered the strongest of the four accusations.

* Providing “perjurious, false and misleading testimony” in his Jones case deposition. This allegation was split off from the first one to accommodate those Republicans who are unsure whether Clinton’s statements in the now-dismissed Jones case amounted to impeachable offenses.

* Obstructing justice in seven different instances in an effort to delay, impede and conceal evidence related to the Jones case.

* “Misusing and abusing his office and impairing the administration of justice by making false public statements to the American people, the Cabinet and White House aides, frivolously asserting executive privilege and making perjurious, false and misleading statements” to Congress in his recent responses to the 81 questions posed by the committee.

White House aides complained that they received the specific charges only after White House Counsel Charles F. C. Ruff had delivered his final argument to the committee at the close of a two-day White House defense.

Ruff Appears Apologetic

“This is an unusual experience for me to be making a closing argument without quite knowing what I’m closing about,” Ruff complained during his testimony.

Abandoning the attacks on Starr that marked the earlier White House defense strategy, Ruff continued the recent push by Clinton and his advisors to appear apologetic without acknowledging criminal wrongdoing.

“The president knows that what he did was wrong. He has admitted it. He has suffered privately and publicly. He is prepared to accept the obloquy that flows from his misconduct, and he recognizes that, like any citizen, he is and will be subject to the rule of law,” said Ruff, a former Watergate special prosecutor.

He added bluntly: “But . . . the president has not committed a high crime or misdemeanor.”

The articles drafted by committee investigators, however, accuse Clinton of exactly that, borrowing from language used during President Nixon’s impeachment 24 years ago.

Although the facts in the Nixon case were far different--and far more serious, numerous experts testified this week--the Judiciary Committee of 1974 approved articles of impeachment on obstruction of justice and abuse of power, along with one count of contempt of Congress.

For those lawmakers concerned that Clinton might escape punishment completely if impeachment fails, Ruff tried to reassure them, saying that the president would be willing to face criminal prosecution for his offenses.

Ruff told committee members that the White House is open to the idea of censure, and he revealed for the first time that Clinton neither will pardon himself nor accept a pardon from his successor to avoid criminal charges.

Appearing largely unmoved by the two-day White House defense, the GOP-led committee prepared to begin today the rough-and-tumble process of approving the charges against the president, which are vehemently opposed by all 16 Democrats on the panel.

After hearing from the committee’s Republican and Democratic chief counsels, panel members each will offer opening statements. They will then begin debating and amending the articles of impeachment, a process that could extend into the weekend.

Although the panel’s 21 Republicans appear united in backing impeachment, they remain at odds on the details of the perjury and abuse of power allegations.

For instance, Rep. George W. Gekas (R-Pa.) and at least one GOP colleague oppose their party’s contention that Clinton’s pursuit of executive privilege during Starr’s investigation amounted to abuse of power. And Rep. Lindsey O. Graham (R-S.C.), among others, does not believe the impeachment articles should include perjury in the Jones deposition since the lawsuit was later dismissed and there is disagreement as to whether Clinton’s statements about Lewinsky were relevant to the case. Graham supports the allegation that Clinton committed perjury before Starr’s grand jury.

The dynamics are even more chaotic in the full House, which is expected to vote next Wednesday or Thursday. To influence that decisive count, members of both parties are scrambling to reach the handful of undecided Republicans who will determine if the case goes to the Senate for trial.

Wait for Evidence, Hyde Tells Colleagues

Seeking to prevent defections that could doom the impeachment effort, Committee Chairman Henry J. Hyde (R-Ill.) fired off a letter to his colleagues encouraging them to keep an open mind until they hear the evidence directly.

“I ask that you withhold judgment in this most important matter, which may soon come before the full House,” Hyde told his colleagues. “I would be more than happy to discuss this matter personally on the telephone if you so desire.”

Hyde told reporters that he would not lobby anyone on which way to vote on this “matter of conscience” but simply wants lawmakers to “keep their powder dry” until they hear the committee’s case.

GOP committee members sparred with Ruff--whom Rep. F. James Sensenbrenner Jr. (R-Wis.) called the White House’s “clean-up hitter”--over whether Clinton lied under oath.

Treading gingerly around the delicate issue, Ruff said that the president misled but did not lie when he denied having “sexual relations” with Lewinsky because he believed “ ‘sexual relations’ means sexual intercourse.”

As a result, Ruff argued, Clinton’s testimony does not constitute perjury, which requires the intent not to tell the truth.

Eventually, Ruff acknowledged that “reasonable people . . . could determine that he crossed over that line and that, what for him was truthful and misleading or nonresponsive and misleading or evasive was, in fact, false.”

While personally addressing the committee, Ruff also was directing his words at lawmakers not in the hearing room.

“My goal is to reach the members whose minds I want to change,” he said, clearly attempting to make Republicans think twice about a vote that some Clinton critics are portraying as less than momentous, since it is unlikely the Senate will vote to convict.

“When all the questions have been asked and answered, when all the debate has ended, and when you look within yourselves and ask, ‘Should I vote to exercise the most awesome power granted in our system of government?’ I have no doubt that you will reach your decisions on the merits and, I hope, unswayed by mere partisanship,” Ruff said.

The White House reached for the same swing votes by calling as a witness former Massachusetts Gov. William F. Weld, a moderate Republican who characterized the impeachment case against the president as weak.

Weld Proposes Stiff Censure, Fine

To preserve the “dignity of the country,” Weld recommended a lesser penalty--a beefed-up censure resolution that would fine the president, describe his conduct in a report, force Clinton to acknowledge his wrongdoing in writing and leave open the possibility of criminal prosecution at the end of his term.

“The most appropriate result is something other than removing this person from his office,” said Weld, whose nomination as Clinton’s ambassador to Mexico was blocked by Senate Republicans. Weld earlier had suggested that Clinton resign, but he has since backed off that proposal.

Hyde, who opposes any punishment short of impeachment, told reporters that he would allow a committee vote on the Democratic censure proposal, against the wishes of some of his GOP colleagues.

“I don’t want to foreclose the fullest expression of the members’ sentiment on this issue,” said Hyde, who had wavered on whether he would allow a vote on such a proposal, which he considers unconstitutional.

Still, it appears unlikely that such a measure will pass the committee and questionable whether the Republican leadership will allow a similar vote by the full House.

To press the matter, Rep. Ellen O. Tauscher (D-Walnut Creek) circulated a letter calling on House Speaker-elect Bob Livingston (R-La.) to allow a vote on a lesser punishment. She joined Reps. Tim Roemer of Indiana, James P. Moran of Virginia and some of the other 31 Democrats who broke with their party this fall to support the ongoing impeachment inquiry.

“While we do not believe that the threshold of impeachment has been reached, we agree that the president’s actions should not go unpunished,” the Democrats said.

“Therefore, we strongly encourage the leadership to provide members with the opportunity to vote for an alternate form of punishment . . . as part of this important historical proceeding.”

(BEGIN TEXT OF INFOBOX / INFOGRAPHIC)

The Charges

House Judiciary Committee Republicans proposed four articles of impeachment against President Clinton. The panel is expected to approve at least one of the articles on a party-line vote later this week, sending the issue to the full House. If the House votes for impeachment, the issue would go to the Senate for trial.

* Article 1 Perjury Before the Grand Jury The president provided perjurious, false and misleading testimony to the federal grand jury [Monica S. Lewinsky and Paula Corbin Jones] . . . .

* Article 2 Perjury in The Jones Case The president provided perjurious, false and misleading testimony as part of the Paula Jones civil rights action brought before him . . . .

* Article 3 Obstruction of Justice The president obstructed justice in an effort to delay, impede, cover up and conceal the existence of evidence related to the Paula Jones civil rights case . . . .

* Article 4 Abuse of Power The president misused and abused his office and impaired the administration of justice . . . .

The Impeachment Schedule

Today: In the morning. Abbe Lowell, counsel for the Democrats on the committee, will make his presentation on why impeachment should not be approved. Later, David Schippers, counsel for the committee Republicans, will argue for impeachment. The committee members will then begin weighing proposed articles of impeachment.

Friday: Debate continues, and votes likely will begin.

Saturday: If needed, the committee will continue in session to complete the voting and send the matter to the full House.

The week of Dec. 14: If approved in committee, any articles of impeachment would be debated and voted on by the full House.

January: If the House approves an article of impeachment, a trial would begin in the Senate, perhaps as early as the first week in January, according to Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott (R-Miss.).

The Congressional Process

Impeachment is a legislative action brought against a government official who has been accused of misconduct or criminal offense.

Step 1: House of Representatives

The House can impeach a federal government official by a majority vote.

Republican: 228

Democrat: 206

Indepndent: 1

Step 2: Senate

The impeached official then goes on trial in the Senate. If two-thirds (67 votes) of the Senate finds the official guilty, he or she is removed from office.

Republican: 55

Democrat: 43

(BEGIN TEXT OF INFOBOX / INFOGRAPHIC)

Option 1: Censure

Text of the draft censure resolution to be offered by Democrats in the House Judiciary Committee:

It is the sense of the Congress that--

On Jan. 20, 1993, William Jefferson Clinton took the oath, prescribed by the Constitution of the United States, faithfully to execute the office of president; implicit in that oath is the obligation that the president set an example of high moral standards and conduct himself in a manner that fosters respect for the truth; and William Jefferson Clinton has egregiously failed in this obligation, and through his actions has violated the trust of the American people, lessened their esteem for the office of president and dishonored the office which they have entrusted to him.

Be it resolved that:

1. The president made false statements concerning his reprehensible conduct with a subordinate;

2. The president took steps to delay discovery of the truth;

3. No person is above the law, and the president remains subject to criminal and civil penalties;

4. William Jefferson Clinton, president of the United States, by his conduct has brought upon himself and fully deserves the censure and condemnation of the American people and the Congress; and by his signature on this joint resolution, the president acknowledges this censure.

Option 2: Impeachment

Key details of the four draft articles of impeachment against Clinton that Republicans on the House Judiciary Committee introduced Wednesday:

1. The first article alleges that the president committed perjury before independent counsel Kenneth W. Starr’s grand jury on Aug. 17 when he:

--”Willfully provided perjurious, false and misleading testimony” about the nature and details of his relationship with Monica S. Lewinsky.

--Lied regarding his prior false testimony in the Paula Corbin Jones sexual harassment lawsuit.

--Lied about allowing his attorney, Robert S. Bennett, to introduce false information in the Jones case.

--Lied about his “corrupt efforts to influence the testimony of witnesses” and to impede evidence-gathering in the Jones case.

2. The second article alleges that Clinton “provided perjurious, false and misleading testimony” in both written answers on Dec. 23, 1997, and during his videotaped testimony on Jan. 17, 1998.

The article alleges Clinton “willfully corrupted and manipulated the judicial process of the United States for his personal gain and exoneration” in the Jones lawsuit and impeded “the administration of justice.”

3. The third draft article contends that Clinton “prevented, obstructed and impeded the administration of justice and ... engaged personally and through his subordinates and agents ... to delay, impede, cover up and conceal the existence” of evidence and testimony related to the Jones case. The article alleges seven acts of obstruction, including “an effort to secure job assistance” for Lewinsky.

4. The fourth draft article alleges that Clinton was guilty ‘of misuse and abuse” of his presidential office in four instances when he:

--Made “false and misleading public statements for the purpose of deceiving the people of the United States.”

--Made “false and misleading statements to members of his Cabinet and White House aides so that these federal employees would repeat such false and misleading statements publicly.”

--”Frivolously and corruptly” asserted executive privilege to block testimony before Starr’s grand jury.

--”Refused and failed to respond to certain requests for admission and willfully made perjurious, false and misleading sworn statements” during the impeachment inquiry.

*

Times staff writers James Gerstenzang and Robert L. Jackson contributed to this story.

*

Times on the Web

*Hear Times political writer Ronald Brownstein’s analysis of the impeachment proceedings and see video excerpts from Wednesday’s House Judiciary Committee hearings on The Times’ Web site: http://ukobiw.net/scandal

More on Hearings

* BY PARTISANSHIP--Rep. Henry J. Hyde called for a bipartisan effort, but impeachment has been a partisan process.A34

* SWING VOTES--Clinton’s fate in the House almost assuredly lies in the jittery hands of two dozen GOP moderates.A35

* SMALL AUDIENCE--Getting in to see the impeachment debate was easy compared to gaining entrance to the art exhibit nearby.A36