BY JANET HOOK and MARC LACEY
Los Angeles Times
WASHINGTON - Although the House Judiciary Committee appears headed toward approving articles of impeachment, enough Republican lawmakers now say that they would vote against removing President Clinton from office or are leaning toward such a "nay" vote that impeachment appears all but doomed in the full House.
If Democrats remain united against impeachment, it would take only 11 Republican defections to keep articles from going to the Senate.
Eight House Republicans told the Los Angeles Times that, based on current evidence, they would vote against impeachment. Enough others say they are leaning that way to put impeachment in serious doubt.
"There are at least 50 Republicans that feel this matter has gone on for so long that it is leading nowhere," said Rep. John Porter, R-Ill., who has declared he would vote against impeachment, given current evidence.
"If you don't have the votes
for impeachment - and I don't think they do - we should vote a resolution of censure," Mr. Porter said.
Such compromises have been dismissed by Judiciary Chairman Henry Hyde, R-Ill., who maintains that his panel's job is to impeach or not impeach. Although Kenneth Starr's testimony was once going to be the beginning and the end of the committee's inquiry, Mr. Hyde and fellow Republicans now plan to delve into possible obstruction in the case of Kathleen Willey - an ex-White House aide who says Mr. Clinton groped her.
In the next two weeks, the committee plans to question Robert Bennett, Mr. Clinton's lawyer in the Paula Jones lawsuit; Bruce Lindsey, the president's confidant; Ms. Willey's lawyer, Daniel Gecker; and Nathan Landow, a Democratic fund-raiser who has denied trying to influence Ms. Willey's testimony in the Jones lawsuit. Though some colleagues have doubts, Rep. Steve Chabot, R-Cincinnati, said Friday he thinks Mr. Starr made a strong case for impeachment. "I thought he held up very well after very intense cross-examination," said Mr. Chabot, a member of the Judiciary Committee. "It is premature to say that unequivocally, but I continue to think that a strong case is being made for perjury and obstruction of justice." The Enquirer Washington Bureau and the New York Times contributed.
