BY LARRY WHEELER
Gannett News Service
WASHINGTON
- Although the House Judiciary Committee has yet to hear from a single player in the Clinton-Lewinsky sex scandal, it is apparent the panel's Republican majority is planning articles of impeachment similar to those brought against President Richard Nixon in 1974.
In documents and statements this week, GOP lawmakers telegraphed their intentions in no uncertain terms.
Rep. Bob Barr, R-Ga., a devout Clinton antagonist, was the most blatant, circulating a "draft" article of impeachment resembling the first of the three Nixon impeachment articles approved by the Judiciary Committee 24 years ago.
|
GOP APPROACH
|
|
Republican members of the House Judiciary Committee have released a 27-page staff report that updates the work of the Watergate-era Judiciary Committee, reviewing the history of impeachment and the meaning of an "impeachable offense." The report offers four conclusions, unmistakable signs of Republican intent:
First, making false and misleading statements under oath has been the most common compelling basis for impeachment - whether it is before a jury, a grand jury, or on a tax return.
Second, the constitutional standard for impeachable offenses is the same for federal judges as it is for presidents and all other civil officers.
Third, impeachable offenses can involve both personal and professional misconduct.
Fourth, impeachable offenses do not have to be federal or state crimes.
|
Rep. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., mentioned a "deposition perjury article of impeachment" in his comments at a hearing of constitutional scholars.
And sitting quietly on the Judiciary Committee's Internet Web site is a newly minted staff report that spells out exactly where the majority is going.
"There was a definite sense the majority seems to be headed toward seriously thinking about formulating impeachment articles against the president," said Michael Gerhardt, a law professor at the College of William and Mary who was among 19 scholars who testified before House Judiciary members Monday. "Some members seemed already to have made factual determinations."
Drawing directly from the Nixon documents of a quarter century ago, Mr. Barr's draft called for Mr. Clinton's impeachment, trial and removal from office for "deceits under oath" and for "conduct calculated to corrupt justice."
While the measure is only a draft, it is a conspicuous signal of the kind of product the GOP-controlled panel probably will produce sometime after it hears from independent counsel Kenneth Starr next week.
Mr. Starr is to appear before the Judiciary Committee Nov. 19 and could be the only major witness called before the panel.
Democrats are expected to cross-examine Mr. Starr about his four-year, $40 million investigations of various Clinton administration scandals, as well as the Paula Jones sexual harassment lawsuit that ultimately led to the public disclosure of Mr. Clinton's sexual encounters with former White House intern Monica Lewinsky.
Mr. Barr and other Republican members of the Judiciary panel believe Mr. Clinton's denial of having "sexual relations" with Ms. Lewinsky during his Jan. 17 deposition in the Jones case, his subsequent denials to the American people and Cabinet officers and his repetition of that same denial in testimony before a Starr grand jury Aug. 17 strike at the heart of U.S. judicial system and compromise his high office.
"He's not charged with marital infidelity. He is not charged with adultery that I've seen," said Rep. Henry Hyde, R-Ill., Judiciary Committee chairman, at this week's hearing.
"But he is charged with possibly committing perjury, possibly suborning perjury, possibly obstructing justice . . . public acts that tend, in my unnuanced opinion, to erode this rule of law that he has a peculiar and unique responsibility to uphold."
Committee Republicans appear willing - as their predecessors did in Watergate - to accuse Mr. Clinton of undermining the judicial process, just as Mr. Nixon was accused of undermining the democratic process, said John McGinnis, a Yeshiva University law professor who once clerked for Mr. Starr when Mr. Starr was an appellate court judge.
Mr. McGinnis was among several scholars who told the Judiciary panel Mr. Starr's allegations against Mr. Clinton - if proven to be true - amount to "classic impeachable offenses."
Another constitutional scholar, Stephen Presser of Northwestern University School of Law, said he was caught by surprise at the determination Republicans showed this week.
"Going into this, I thought the Republicans were looking for a nice way out in light of the election results," Mr. Presser said. "But instead, I had a very strong feeling there are a number of lawmakers who regard this as an extremely serious procedure that has to go to its logical and inevitable outcome," Mr. Presser said.
