COMMITTEE VIEWS

November 19, 1998
		Jim Lehrer talks with two members of the House Judiciary Committee who are participating in Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr's testimony. Republican Bill McCollum of Florida and Democrat Zoe Lofgren of California join the NewsHour from Capitol Hill.

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.     The House Judiciary Committee Background on the impeachment process from JURIST, the Law Professor Network.	JIM LEHRER: Reaction now to the Starr testimony beginning from Capitol Hill with two members of the committee, Republican Bill McCollum of Florida and Democrat Zoe Lofgren of California. JIM LEHRER: Congressman McCollum, bottom line question, did you hear anything today that changed anything for you? REP. BILL McCOLLUM: Well, actually I did. I heard quite a bit of the summary that Ken Starr had to say this morning, and I was very impressed with what he put together in a comprehensive fashion about the President, in my view, having an intentional cold, calculated, well thought out scheme to try to avoid letting the court in the Jones case or the grand jury later fully understand the facts that were involved in the matter of his relationship with Ms. Lewinsky. By that, I mean, a calculation to lie, commit perjury, get others to lie in the case of Betty Currie and Monica Lewinsky, and then to try to keep the subpoena that was out there for the gifts from being fully complied with by trying to hide those gifts or have them hidden, and even trying to get a job for her. I thought he made a very simplistic and straightforward case about that, far more credible in his presentation of the facts than was done in the summary that came up to us, and I also say that I thought he came across today as a very warm human being and a very sincere man, who's dedicated to justice, and I think anybody who objectively watched this would come away with that same sense about Ken Starr, which we have not had a chance to see previously. JIM LEHRER: Congresswoman Lofgren, is that the impression you came away from today? REP. ZOE LOFGREN: Well, no. The report delivered in September really was not materially changed, except that he went way beyond what the evidence can possibly support in the allegations today. I thought that - I did notice that one of his lawyers in back of him was literally - you know how you fall asleep and go like that - so it wasn't the most riveting morning for America, but it - I don't think it really informed us. He - to my colleague, Watt, admitted he's really not a witness to any of this. I think it's really kind of bizarre that he is - this is the only noticed hearing - he is the only noticed witness, and he's not a witness to any of the facts, except his role in expanding the investigation and he didn't really answer questions about that. JIM LEHRER: Well, now Congressman Lofgren, you went into this not being in favor of voting for articles of impeachment, is that correct? REP. ZOE LOFGREN: Not until we meet the constitutional standard. JIM LEHRER: Okay. And you didn't hear anything today that changes that view?
	REP. ZOE LOFGREN: You know, one thing I did hear, Jim, that I thought was interesting, because I haven't talked a lot about it but I've thought a lot about it - and the allegations about misuse of the FBI files for political purposes is - was very serious. In fact, the standard is, you know, destruction of our constitutional system of government without saying that that alone would be it, boy, it's sure in the area that you'd want to look at. And I think that would be bipartisan. Mr. Starr basically said there's nothing to that, which I wish we had known earlier from his own lips or in his report, but I thought it was interesting that he basically just completely dismissed that and that was news. JIM LEHRER: Now, Congressman McCollum, you went into this hearing today feeling - because you've said it on this program, in fact, that if you felt that the President had committed perjury, no matter what, under what circumstances or whatever the issue was, you would vote for articles of impeachment. REP. BILL McCOLLUM: That's right. JIM LEHRER: And nothing's changed. REP. BILL McCOLLUM: Nothing's changed in that regard, except I thought that Ken Starr did a better job than any of the expert witnesses we had the other day coming before us to express the importance of that and the relative importance of it. When he combined perjury and bribery and said they're made of one and the same cloth, they go to the same problem in our judicial system that undermine the courts, if you allow somebody to get away with it, particularly the chief executive officer of the nation, and what that really means he brought home today in spades, and I thought he was extremely articulate about that and how if the President is not impeached, it can send a terrible message out there, and that's really what motivates Ken Starr in bringing this up. And I even asked him about the question of did the obstruction of justice charge related to trying to get her a job if, indeed, we conclude that that is meritorious, does that rise to the level of bribery, and I read the statute to him, and I got a response that I took to mean that that's something we certainly could find. The elements are there. And that bribery, high crimes and misdemeanors, perjury, obstruction of justice, and things that I think go to the very basis of our system of justice. And I'm more compelled to say that I'm moving in that direction than ever. JIM LEHRER: And you're more compelled, Congresswoman Lofgren, to move the other way? REP. ZOE LOFGREN: Well, I just want to say something on this perjury thing. JIM LEHRER: All right. REP. ZOE LOFGREN: He said that he wasn't saying that perjury had been committed but talking about false statements under oath, I pointed out that he made a false statement under oath today. On page 36 of his testimony, he said, we go to court, we don't go on the talk shows. This morning he went on "Good Morning America." So he made a false statement under oath. Maybe it's perjury. Is he saying he should be impeached? He's a civil officer. Obviously, that's preposterous. We need to have activity that destroys our constitutional system. I mean, under the theory that he espouses several of the members, if you lie about your golf score under oath, you should be impeached. Well, obviously, that's not what George Mason - and James Madison had in mind. REP. BILL McCOLLUM: I'm saying this is a whole lot different than that, folks. This is a lot more complex and more complicated. And I thought that the President didn't come off well on that score today. And I thought that one of the things that came across very clearly was Ken Starr saying look, the criteria of the definition - and the elements of perjury were, indeed, here - it's not just false statements. Perjury is there. He answered my question on that point very explicitly.
	Most embarrassing incident.
	JIM LEHRER: Well, let me - Congresswoman Lofgren, speaking of coming off a certain way, your comments that you made to Mr. Starr had to do with - this is the most embarrassing - one of the most embarrassing incidents in American history. REP. ZOE LOFGREN: Yes. JIM LEHRER: And you added some other things to that. And I had the feeling watching you that you were disgusted about this whole thing, not only what the President did, but the process that you participated in today. REP. ZOE LOFGREN: Yes. JIM LEHRER: Is that a correct reading? REP. ZOE LOFGREN: That is a correct reading. Obviously, the President embarrassed himself. He embarrassed his family. He embarrassed his country. And he should be ashamed of himself. And I think he probably is. But we embarrassed our country today also by having an arbitrary process, by denying -- the very first thing we did was have a partisan vote to deny the President's lawyers equal time with the prosecutor, to limit the members of the committee to five minutes, where you can't even follow up on a question. This is not the kind of dignified, elevated, constitutional proceeding that we should have had. But it's not a surprise in that this was referred to us, the Congress, on September 8th. It's now November 19th, and this is the very first time the full committee has actually addressed this. And we're just jamming it up, and it's not - it's not a fair process, and it's not going to yield a good result.
	REP. BILL McCOLLUM: With all due respect, I really disagree with Zoe on this one big time. Today we were seeing a situation where Abbe Lowell, the Democrat's counsel, was given an extra whole hour. He had two hours to question. We had the five-minute rule, which is traditional in all hearings up here. This is not a court proceeding. And I'm sure - REP. ZOE LOFGREN: No. It's only the impeachment of the President - REP. BILL McCOLLUM: And I'm sure that when the President's counsel gets up here later, as Henry Hyde has said, he's going to be very liberal. We're giving them a lot more time than Republicans have - to the Democrats. That's to me absurd you're saying it's not fair. We're going through this, I think, in as fair a way as you humanly possibly could do.
	An irelevancy?
	JIM LEHRER: Let me ask each of you, beginning with you, Congressman McCollum, is it a fair observation from those of us on the outside watching today that actually this hearing today is almost an irrelevancy in some ways, that there are 21 Republicans, they came in, determined to vote out articles of impeachment and there are 16 Democrats who came in today determined not to vote it, and nothing has changed. REP. BILL McCOLLUM: Well I don't think it's irrelevant at all. I think that there were predispositions that members had because we spent a lot of time studying it, but I would tell you that I learned a lot today I didn't know for sure. I would not vote for some of these matters that I might not after today, because I really wanted to feel comfortable with the establishment of all of the elements, for example, of the crime of perjury. And I thought Starr did an excellent job of outlining the facts, putting them together with the charges, much better than anything we've seen before. So I would not say that this was not a very productive day for us, and I certainly think it's a productive day for the nation, who never had a chance to hear Ken Starr before, see what he was like, and get a chance to rebut all these Democrat charges that I think have been trying to be a diversion from the White House for months now. So I think it was a very productive day. We got more to got. But this was a positive day. JIM LEHRER: A productive day, Congresswoman? REP. ZOE LOFGREN: I don't think so. I don't think anything has been learned, other than Mr. Starr was unable to answer some of the questions about his own activities. Hopefully, we'll get that. I think that we can get that in an affidavit, following up, at least I expect that. But other than that, I don't think we learned a lot, except that this is a partisan effort that will not quit. The American people are sick of it; I understand why; and for reasons that are beyond me we're just going to drive this right home, without ever meeting the constitutional standard. JIM LEHRER: Congresswoman, let me ask you this -- to follow up on something that Congressman McCollum said earlier and he just repeated it - about seeing Kenneth Starr as a human being. He's been depicted as an ogre, all kinds of awful things. How did he come over to you just in personal terms today?
	REP. ZOE LOFGREN: Well, he's not my type, but this morning I met a lady whose life was destroyed by his office, who was threatened, who lost her job, whose family was ruined. And she is - I mean, her whole life has been ruined. She was threatened to cooperate. She was exonerated twice. When she spoke to the press to complain, they said they were going to prosecute her again. She's never been prosecuted in the four years since that's happened. And I wonder what about her rule of law, what about fairness to her? REP. BILL McCOLLUM: Well, I bet you, Zoe, that you could find a lot of prosecutors around the country that you get people who say they've had their lives destroyed when they were doing an investigation. I don't think that's the issue here. I think that the issue is how these facts are handled, and whether or not again did the President commit perjury, obstruction of justice, bribery, and so forth. That's the bottom line. REP. ZOE LOFGREN: I think abusing American citizens and never giving them their day in court is very much a part of the American system. REP. BILL McCOLLUM: Well the other question - part of this that's being begged today is what do we do if we don't impeach the President and he has committed these crimes, we conclude that, and you've talked to all the people like the two women who we have heard so much about in the last week or two who have been in jail for committing perjury. REP. ZOE LOFGREN: That was answered by Boucher and Starr. REP. BILL McCOLLUM: On section -- REP. ZOE LOFGREN: One of the best exchanges today was between Congressman Rick Boucher and Mr. Starr, where Mr. Boucher just ran him through - isn't it true that presidents are subject to criminal prosecution after their terms are over, isn't it true that the statute of limitations will not run on these -- REP. BILL McCOLLUM: But can they with integrity stay in office - come on now - JIM LEHRER: Okay. REP. BILL McCOLLUM: That's what impeachment is about. JIM LEHRER: All right. And we have to be about - REP. ZOE LOFGREN: Impeachment is about saving the country. JIM LEHRER: Thank you both very much.