HEARING ANALYSIS

November 19, 1998
		Jim Lehrer talks with journalist/author Elizabeth Drew and National Journal columnist Stuart Taylor for analysis of Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr's testimony.

Return to the Analysis Section. The Full-text of Kenneth Starr's report to Congress and the White House rebuttal (From Online NewsHour) For more on Whitewater visit Frontline's Once Upon a Time in Arkansas. Text and analysis of President Clinton's address to the nation following his grand jury testimony. A look at the independent counsel law and how it affected one case (From Frontline) President Clinton's interview with Jim Lehrer in which he denies any relationship with Monica Lewinsky. (From Online NewsHour) Washington Week in Review reacts to growing scandal.     The House Judiciary Committee Background on the impeachment process from JURIST, the Law Professor Network.	JIM LEHRER: And to some analysis and commentary about this day from Stuart Taylor, columnist for the National Journal and Newsweek, and author/journalist Elizabeth Drew. JIM LEHRER: Elizabeth, what, in your opinion, was the most important thing that happened today? ELIZABETH DREW: I think the most important thing that happened today was that it was a very large and dramatic example or showing that this is a very troubling precedent. Now, Zoe Lofgren was talking about the lack of dignity and sobriety. She was part of - she was on the staff of someone on the Impeachment Committee in 1974. I covered it. Now, you know, you don't want to bathe in nostalgia, say those were the great old days and it should be like that, but this struck me as not particularly thoughtful. Most people made up their minds, and - JIM LEHRER: So you would agree with me that it's still 21 to 16? ELIZABETH DREW: Well, yes, we haven't heard everybody yet, but it certainly looks that way, and I know that Mr. McCollum has been predicting to people that there be several articles of impeachment voted out of this committee and I don't see anything that's going to stop that. Mr. Starr surprised me in some ways. The idea that the prosecutor was the person who was the witness and then flatly said perjury is an impeachable offense, he agreed with Mr. McCollum that perjury is like bribery. He said that the founding father would have found perjury an impeachable offense. There's no evidence of that. I'm not saying that these are necessarily not. But his adamancy about this and the expansion of his role, which under the law is to report to the Congress of any substantial and credible evidence of an impeachable offense, so I think this has kind of really gone off the rails. Now to say all that does not say that President Clinton behaved well, honorably, or did anything we can respect, and everybody can decide what form of punishment he should have or, in fact, some people think he has been punished. He's been shamed. This is always going to be on his historical record. But the idea that this is the way you go about this truly in the real sense awesome proceeding was a little worrisome. JIM LEHRER: Worrisome to you, Stuart?
	STUART TAYLOR: Oh, I think there are a number of worrisome things about that, but the things that worry me probably aren't the same ones that worry Elizabeth. I worry, frankly, that the Democratic Party has rallied around the proposition that a little perjury and a little obstruction of justice isn't such a big deal, and let's attack the person who's telling us what happened, rather than ascertain whether that, in fact, is what happened. But the big picture - I think the large relevance of this - was not how it would affect people in the room, because they weren't hearing much that they didn't know already if they hadn't done their jobs. It's basically polls, television, for better or - and I don't say that to belittle it. We live in a very poll-driven participatory democracy. I would sort of prefer it that way. Madison thought it would work but it's changed because television has changed it. The fact of the matter is 62 percent of the people I think in the exit polls after the November election said he shouldn't be impeached, and as long as that holds, it's going through the motions. Congress will never impeach him or at least never remove him from office, in the face of those polls. The question here is will anything that happened today change the polls? In that regard, Starr had the best chance he will ever have to make his case to the American people that these were - this isn't just a little lying about sex, that he's not excessive, that this is a serious succession of premeditated federal crimes, an attack on the integrity of the judicial process over a period of eight months. I thought he did very well at that. The Democrats had the best chance they will ever have to come forth and show what the basis for their charges that this man is a monster, a Torquemada, a Gestapo, a Salem witch trial person, and they took their best shot. Frankly, I thought the stuff they threw at him was pretty weak. And that's really - I thought the answers were pretty weak too. I did not think he performed well in answering those questions. I thought there - JIM LEHRER: He laid his case out well you think against the President but he didn't respond well to the - STUART TAYLOR: Yes. And I'm talking more style and substance. He sort of meandered around and talked about deliberative process and there were questions that he should have had quick, crisp answers to that he sort of said, I'll have to think about that. I thought that was not very satisfactory. Bottom line - but you get back to the Democrats said nothing that I heard, nothing all day long that suggested any doubt whatsoever about Starr's evidence. They said, oh, you don't have personal knowledge, we haven't got the witnesses here - they didn't - they didn't get to the point. The question is: Will they ever do that, and will the polls force them to come to grips with that, or will it just be it's over, finit? JIM LEHRER: How do you read that, Elizabeth, the idea that the Democrats didn't even attempt to try to disprove anything that Starr said in terms of from a factual standpoint?
	Lies or Perjury?
	ELIZABETH DREW: Well, the whole thing was very curious, because none of them wanted to talk about the elephant in the room. In other words, this does begin with perjury - perjury - alleged perjury, real perjury about sex, which gets to questions that they know the public doesn't want to hear any more about and so they didn't - didn't talk about on what grounds are you saying the President perjured himself. It was very odd. They were just all around the thing. I agree with Stuart, that the Democrats didn't - most of them - didn't raise themselves to a particularly high level either. Their role was to try to hit Starr with sticks and raise some real questions about his investigation. Now, his investigation - if it's flawed, does that mean the President didn't do the things he did? Of course not. Well, I was surprised, frankly, that - well, maybe not surprised. The famous tin ear that people have said that Starr had came out, oh, it wasn't so bad that Monica Lewinsky was detained for hours at the Ritz Carlton in Virginia, because it's really a comfortable and luxurious place. It was consensual that she stayed there, even though they said if you leave, you're going to get 27 years in jail. He kept referring to a taped conversation between Linda Tripp and Monica Lewinsky as a consensual taping - well, no, I mean, nobody - JIM LEHRER: Consensual on what end? Explain that, Stuart. That means - legally consensual means one party, right? STUART TAYLOR: It's boiler plate, prosecutorial rhetoric, at least under federal law, that if - if I have a bunch of cops listening in on my end of the phone while I'm taping you - JIM LEHRER: And I don't know about it - STUART TAYLOR: That's consensual because I consented, it's sort of silly for him to use that word, but I'd say in fairness to him, prosecutors and other lawyers develop silly habits after a while. I don't think he was trying to mislead anybody. In the end, I think Congressman Schumer, a Democrat, who was on the attack against Starr, puts a very interesting point to this. He says, and he said it before, I have no doubt, says Congressman Schumer, to the - Senator-Elect Schumer of New York - no doubt that the President perjured himself in the grand jury or lied to the grand jury, I guess he said, but I don't think it's impeachable. Sen. Moynihan, also a Democrat, who will be his fellow Senator from New York, has said before, and I assume still believes, perjury is an impeachable offense. The question ultimately will be which of those views prevails. JIM LEHRER: And that's where it's all going to come down to, isn't it? ELIZABETH DREW: Yes. Chairman Hyde accepts the reality, I'm told, that the President's not going to be removed from office. So the question becomes at what point does this process end and how. Now some rather prominent Republicans actually were so concerned - are so concerned about the effect of proceeding with this - the future effect on the party, that they actually started - well, Ralph Reed, the former head of the Conservative Coalition, now a Republican consultant - wrote to the Republicans and said, drop the idea of impeachment, go to censure. Now people have raised a lot of problems about censure. I know another prominent Republican. JIM LEHRER: But we're a long way from that yet. ELIZABETH DREW: Well, not so far. Another prominent Republican went to the members and said, even accepting that they may be impeachable offenses, think, is it really in the interest of the country to remove the President, but nobody's figured out how to stop it. JIM LEHRER: We've got a lot of time to talk about that. Thank you both very much.