CLOSER TO IMPEACHMENT?

November 5, 1998

Our regional commentators join Margaret Warner to discuss Judiciary Committee Chairman Henry Hyde's announcement of an impeachment inquiry.

MARGARET WARNER: And we hear tonight from our regulars: Cynthia Tucker of the Atlanta Constitution; Robert Kittle of the San Diego Union Tribune; Lee Cullum of the Dallas Morning News; and Patrick McGuigan of the Daily Oklahoman. Joining them tonight is Susan Albright of the Minneapolis Star Tribune. MARGARET WARNER: Lee Cullum, I know you and all the rest of you just heard both Chairman Hyde and the four members of the Judiciary Committee discuss Chairman Hyde's approach. Do you think this sounds like the right approach? LEE CULLUM: Margaret, I think it's a very fair and reasonable and sensible approach. It may be a little odd to have the prosecutor as the only witness at the hearing, but somebody's got to participate as a witness at the hearing, and I think Ken Starr is a perfectly good person to present his own case. It seems to me the only other alternative is Monica Lewinsky, herself. And I hate to put this young woman through that. She's behaved very foolishly, but I think it would be very destructive to her, with not very much gain for the nation, demeaning to the nation really to have her discussing her dangerous liaison with the President. So, Ken Starr strikes me as just as good as anybody to present the case. Of course, it would help a great deal if the President would answer those questions truthfully. It may be that a lot could be solved very quickly then in a way that would be to everybody's satisfaction. MARGARET WARNER: Pat McGuigan, what do you think of the approach, particularly calling only Ken Starr and no material witnesses? PATRICK McGUIGAN: I'm a little bit concerned about it. The reason that I'm concerned is that there are issues broader than this - what everybody is calling it in the shorthand is that this is just about sex. And I really shouldn't say it's everybody, because I'm one of the dissenters on that topic. This President, if he were a decent man, would resign. But he is an indecent man, so he's going to try to cling to power. He would spare the country what's going to come in the next few months if he were a decent man; but he's an indecent man. So we'll all get to go through this process. And I find it very frustrating to hear some of the things that the Democrats on the committee are putting out, because, on the one hand, after months of saying that this process has gone on too long, now they're coming up with ways to stretch the process out. I am concerned that limiting the testimony just to Ken Starr will prevent the Democrats and the Republicans from looking at evidence that's already in the public record about the campaign finance issue; about the diversion of the FBI files illegally to the White House years ago; about the Travel Office issue and many others. So I don't know where we're headed, but I think we're headed towards a lot of partisan and vindictive behavior on the part of the President and his allies. MARGARET WARNER: Cynthia Tucker, what do you think of this idea of limiting the testimony really just to Ken Starr? CYNTHIA TUCKER: I think what Chairman Hyde is trying to do here, Margaret, is have the appearance of fairness without actual fairness, itself. Don't be fooled. Despite Chairman Hyde's having said that the elections Tuesday were not a referendum on the impeachment process, they were, indeed, by virtue of the fact that voters said that they wanted their representatives to pay attention to other things. So I think he has submitted a process which will be shorter but which will still favor the Republicans. After all, what Kenneth Starr has done is submit a report in which he basically said that the President needed to be impeached. If that's the only witness that's heard from, that's not - not really a fair process. And I can't imagine that the Democrats will let it go by without at least calling Linda Tripp, who, after all, has been integral to the Monica Lewinsky affair. MARGARET WARNER: Bob Kittle, we certainly could hear from Congressman Barrett and Congressman Meehan that they don't like this approach of just calling Ken Starr. What do you think of it? What are the risks for each side in this, in doing that? ROBERT KITTLE: Well, initially, I think it's the right approach, because I think Chairman Hyde is correct to try to do all that he can to expedite this process. After all, the facts are not so much in dispute here as the interpretation of whether the facts, whether the President's misconduct constitutes an impeachable offense. Now, for the Republicans, the risk is that they will appear, as Jim mentioned a moment ago, or I guess it was Congressman Meehan, who first used the term, that they're railroading the process, railroading the President toward a certain preconceived conclusion that impeachment is warranted. For the Democrats, however, I think there are some risks too, and that essentially is that they will try to make Starr the issue, and we will reduce this whole and very fundamentally important question of whether the President has committed impeachable offenses to a battle between Kenneth Starr and the President. That's a lot of the way this process has unfolded so far. That's not good. There are some serious questions that need to be answered here. But, you know, ultimately, I think, this is issue, whether the President will be impeached, of course, is a political decision. And this week's election results, I think, argue for a very prompt resolution of this. Whether the President has committed impeachable offenses is not something that we editorial writers will decide or political pundits will decide. For that matter, it's not really so much in the hands of the Congress as it is in the hands of the American people. And as Hyde, himself, has said, if the American people do not want the President impeached, the House will not impeach the President. And that's what the framers had in mind when they gave the responsibility for weighing an impeachment decision to the House, which is the institution of the federal government really is closest to the will of the people. MARGARET WARNER: Susan Albright, is that the way you see what Chairman Hyde said today, that he was essentially reading the results of the election, even though he said he wasn't, and that - and rightly so - as Bob Kittle is saying? SUSAN ALBRIGHT: Actually, I agree with a lot of what Bob and Cynthia have been saying. I think it makes sense to use a lot of the material from grand jury testimony. We do know a lot of the facts. This isn't like Watergate, where we were looking for the basic facts. My eyebrows did go up a little bit about the stipulation. I don't know exactly what they're asking Clinton to do. If they're asking him to stipulate to perjury, for example, I don't think he would do that. I don't think he should do that. And I also have some concerns that they still aren't talking about whether - if proved - these charges would amount to an impeachable offense. MARGARET WARNER: Pat McGuigan, address the other main point that Chairman Hyde talked about and that the four Judiciary Committee members just talked about, which is whether or not this committee has the authority to recommend sanctions short of impeachment, articles of impeachment. Chairman Hyde said he doesn't think so. It seemed to be a split between the Republicans and the Democrats Jim just talked to. How do you see that? PATRICK McGUIGAN: I see it very much the same way the Chairman does. And, actually, one of the Democrats indicated that he had some agreement with that, and that is that there is a process defined in the Constitution. It's the impeachment process. All the details are not spread out, but the process is there, and the Constitution is one thing I hope we can all agree on, that we ought to try and stay in the framework of that document. And if the decision of a majority of this committee or a majority of the House of Representatives is not that the President should be impeached, then that should be the decision. If their decision is that he should be impeached and that's roughly the equivalent of an indictment, then that should go to the Senate. I do think there's a little bit of persuasiveness, more so than the Senate might be able to play some role in parsing out a lesser punishment simply because, in essence, they are the jury, but they also have a quasi judicial function that's a little bit different than like a grand jury's. So that's a long answer, but I think that Hyde is closer to the truth. MARGARET WARNER: Lee Cullum, address just this point, if you would, whether you think the Judiciary Committee should have a more expansive view of what options it can look at. LEE CULLUM: Well, Margaret, after watching Chairman Hyde's press conference today, I reached for my copy of the Constitution and looked up these matters, and they are very scanty. It says - and I paraphrase - that the House has the power to bring a case of impeachment; the Senate has the power to try a case of impeachment - has the power to is not the same thing as saying must. So I think the Senate and the House both have a great deal of leeway here. I really do. Now I want to say that my paper - the Dallas Morning News - has also called in past weeks for the President to resign. After Tuesday's elections, I don't see any reason to expect that. So I think the House and the Senate are going to have to think carefully about what they really want the outcome to be. And I would like to add that I think that Hyde, Chairman Hyde, has outlined a process that is very favorable to the President and to the Democrats. They have Ken Starr there; they can make an issue of him if they want to. It seems to me that he has given the President every possible break. So I see no cause for complaint here. MARGARET WARNER: Cynthia, do you think - and I ask you all to be a little brief because we're just about out of time, but I want to get around to all of you again - do you think this process looks like it's a break for the President? CYNTHIA TUCKER: The process that Henry Hyde outlined, again, I think is an attempt to look fair without actually being fair. But, as I understand it, Democrats on the committee still have the opportunity to call other witnesses if they want to. And so with that and with the election results, yes, ultimately, I think the process will be more favorable to the President. MARGARET WARNER: Susan Albright, you could see there was a real argument between the Republicans and Democrats Jim just talked to on this question of whether they consider other options. Did you see the seeds of bipartisanship in that discussion? SUSAN ALBRIGHT: Oh, I think there's some bipartisanship, but I was curious whether Conyers had input on this, and I did request a statement from their office. And apparently, the stipulation request was unilateral by Hyde and the ranking Democrat was concerned about that. He also expressed concern that -- I would share this one - about having Starr able to comment on things that weren't in his referral. To me, that opens up a huge area that shouldn't be opened up in this particular proceeding. MARGARET WARNER: Bob Kittle, you have the last word. Does it look like there's hope for a bipartisan consensus here at all? ROBERT KITTLE: I think there probably is, Margaret, and the reason I say that is that I think a verdict of sorts has already been reached in the last couple of days by the American people in the way they voted. So I think the voting results - the election results this week - argue for some sort of a compromise here and a quick resolution of the matter. I think that probably supports the President, makes it easier to work out ultimately a plan that stops short of impeachment. MARGARET WARNER: All right. Thank you all five very much.