The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer

. .. .. .. .. ... . . . . . . . This is a news hour special report on PBS from Washington, a one-hour summary of today's

House Judiciary Committee impeachment hearings. Rotten you in part by ADM, Feeding the World is the biggest challenge of the new century, which is why ADM promotes satellite technology to help the American farmer be even more productive. ADM, supermarket to the world. And by travelers. You spend a dollar on homeowners insurance and we invested in municipal bonds. We get a solid rating, you get a solid policy. And the neighborhood gets a new playground. Additional funding is provided by viewers like you. Good evening, I'm Kwame Holman.

Today, the House Judiciary Committee held the third public hearing in its impeachment inquiry of President Clinton. White House lawyers began presenting the president's defense. They contended Mr. Clinton's conduct in the Monica Lewinsky matter falls short of high crimes and misdemeanors, and therefore does not merit impeachment. Many Republicans reportedly are drafting three articles of impeachment of Mr. Clinton, charging perjury, obstruction of justice, and abuse of presidential power. Last month, the committee heard Independent Council Kenneth Starr's case against the president and a week ago, a range of witnesses testified about the issue of perjury. We have extended coverage of today's 11-hour marathon session. The day began with an overview of the president's defense presented by White House Council Gregory Craig. And Clinton's legal team originally asked for up to four days to present his case against impeachment to the House Judiciary Committee. Committee Chairman Henry Hyde gave the White House team 30 hours over two days. Shortly after 10 o'clock this morning, the defense began, but the opening presentation was not made by David Kendall, the president's private attorney who last represented the

president for the committee. Instead, it was Gregory Craig, a special counsel hired by the White House specifically to assist the president during the impeachment process. As we begin this undertaking, I make only one plea to you. And I hope it is not a futile one coming this late in the process. Open your mind, open your heart, and focus on the record. As you sit there listening to me at this moment, you may already be determined to vote to approve some articles of impeachment against this president. That is your right and your duty if you believe the facts and the law justify such a vote. But there is a lot of conventional wisdom about this case that has just plain wrong. And if you are, in fact, disposed to vote for impeachment in the name of a justice that is fair and blind and impartial, please do so only on the basis of the real record and on the real testimony, not on the basis of what someone else tells you is in the record.

By the close of tomorrow, all the world will see one simple and undeniable fact. Whatever there is in the record that shows that what the president did was wrong and blame worthy, there is nothing in the record in either the law or the facts that would justify his impeachment and removal from office. In truth, I would not be fairly representing President Clinton if I did not convey to you his profound and powerful regret for what he has done. He is insisted and personally instructed his lawyers that no technicalities or legalities should be allowed to obscure the simple moral truth that his behavior in this matter was wrong. He misled his wife and family, his friends and colleagues, and our nation about the nature of his relationship with Ms. Lewinsky. The president wants everyone to know the committee, the Congress, and the country that

he is genuinely sorry for the pain and the damage that he has caused and for the wrongs that he has committed. But as an attorney, I must caution this committee to draw a sharp distinction between immoral conduct and illegal acts, just as no fancy language can obscure the simple fact that what the president did was morally wrong. No amount of rhetoric can change the legal reality that there are no grounds for impeachment. As surely as we all know that what he did is sinful, we also know it is not impeachable. Mr. Chairman, I am willing to concede that in the Jones deposition, the president's testimony was evasive, incomplete, misleading, even maddening, but it was not perjury. On the allegation of perjury before the grand jury, which we all agree is the more serious

offense, please look at the real record, not the referral's report of that record. As of Americans watched that testimony, they concluded, as I believe that you two will find, that in fact the president admitted to an improper, inappropriate, and intimate relationship with Ms. Lewinsky. He did not deny it. He admitted it. Fair-minded Americans heard what the president said and they knew what the president meant. When it comes to allegations that the president with Ms. Lewinsky, Ms. Curry, and Mr. Jordan obstructed justice, we will show that the evidence presented in the referral is misleading, incomplete, and frequently inaccurate. We will show that the president did not obstruct justice with respect to gifts, the job search, or the affidavit, and we will show that the president did not seek wrongfully to influence Ms. Curry's testimony.

Again, we will ask you to look at the real record, not the referral's version of the record. And the real record shows that the sworn testimony of Ms. Lewinsky, Ms. Curry, and Mr. Jordan, far from incriminating the president, actually exonerates him. And yet their testimony, although crystal clear before the grand jury, is edited, modified, qualified, or ignored in the referral. When it comes to allegations that the president abused his office, we will show that the president's assertions of executive privilege were perfectly proper and that the claims of attorney-client privilege were justified under the circumstances. And when it comes to allegations that the president used the power of his office to mislead his aides, not as one might think for the purpose of protecting himself and his family, but as alleged to mislead the grand jury, we will show that false denials about an improper private relationship, whether those denials are made in private or before the entire world,

simply do not constitute an abuse of office that justifies impeachment. The first panel called to testify in defense of the president consisted of two legal experts and two historians, each of whom insisted the constitutional standards required for impeachment had not been met. It seems to me the fundamental question is simply whether the president has done something which has destroyed public confidence in his ability to continue in that office. If the public doesn't believe that what he has done seriously affects his ability to perform his public duties as president, should the committee conclude that his acts have destroyed public confidence, essential to that office? The only question after all, is removal of office from an elected official? Is it proper? Is it the proper role of a partisan majority in Congress to conclude that the offenses are so serious as to warrant removal even if the public believes otherwise? In the case of President Clinton, the American people have twice answered that question

by electing him to the American presidency. And if we seek further light on the President-American mind, surveys of opinion continue to confirm that answer, which also in no way is disturbed by the outcome of the recent midterm elections. I conclude the failure to consider the whole record of Clinton's presidency in foreign and domestic affairs who have severe long-run costs. The removal of a president, thanks to such a neglect of judgment, could substantially damage our democratic system. During his opening remarks, Princeton University History Professor Sean Walens issued a warning to members of the House who are leaning toward voting for impeachment. What each of you on the committee and your fellow members of the House must decide each for him or herself is whether the actual facts alleged against the president, the actual facts

and not the sonorous formal charges truly rise to the level of impeachable offenses. If you believe they do rise to that level, you will vote for impeachment and take your risks at going down in history with the zealots and the fanatics. If you understand that the charges do not rise to the level of impeachment or if you're at all unsure and yet you vote in favor of impeachment anyway for some other reason, history will track you down and condemn you for your ravenous. Alternatively, you could muster the courage of your convictions. The choice is yours. And Yale University Professor Bruce Ackerman said any impeachment articles adopted by the House this month could be constitutionally invalid by next January 3rd. People seem to be assuming that once the president committee and the full House vote for a bill of impeachment, the stage will be set for trial in the Senate in the net coming year. Nothing could be further from the truth.

As a constitutional matter, the House of Representatives is not a continuing body. When the 105th House dies on January 3rd, all its unfinished business dies with it. To begin with the most obvious example, a bill passed by the 105th House that is still pending in the 105th Senate on January 3rd cannot be enacted into law unless it once again is approved by the 106th House of Representatives. This is as it should be. Otherwise lame duck congresses would have a field day in situations like the present where the old House majority has a setback in the polls. Recognizing that its political power is on the wane, the dominant party will predictably use its lame duck months to pass lots of controversial legislation onto the Senate in defiance of the judgment made by the voters. Republicans on the committee cited opinions from other constitutional experts who say articles of impeachment of one congress indeed may be transferred to the next.

Questioning of the panelists then began the tone of many of those questions reflected the committee's sharp partisan divide over impeachment. Mr. Craig, I'm glad we're getting into facts. I think it's very important that we do that and although I too am disappointed there are no fact witnesses I think the discussion is important as we look through these things. There are a lot of things in the record that you are obligated to tell us where we're wrong about because or where the record may be different and I'm looking forward to that. The record I see with regard to the grand jury testimony in the case of the president swore that he did not know that his personal friend Vernon Jordan had met with Monica Lewinsky and had talked about the case. And I'd say the evidence indicates that he lied about that when he made that swearing. The president in that deposition swore that he could not recall being alone with Monica Lewinsky. The evidence that I've read so far indicates he lied about that. The president swore he could not recall ever being in the Oval Hallway, Oval Office Hallway with Ms. Lewinsky except perhaps when she was delivering a pizza.

The evidence indicates he lied about that. The president swore he couldn't recall gifts exchanged between Monica Lewinsky and himself. The evidence indicates he lied about that. The president swore that he was not sure whether he had ever talked to Monica Lewinsky about the possibility that she might be asked to testify in the Jones case. The evidence indicates he lied about that. First let me say Congressman will call him that we are going to file with the committee today a written response that I think will address every single one of those allegations that you just went through. You can find them consolidated on pages 18 and 19 of Mr. Starr's presentation before this committee. And there are two things that I think are very important to get straight. One is that the characterization of the president's testimony in each one of those incidents is inaccurate. And the second thing is that you've mixed up grand jury testimony with civil deposition testimony in very dangerous and misleading ways.

And I hope I heard you answer questions over the weekend and I was very pleased with your response on the issue of separating allegations of perjury on the civil deposition from allegations of perjury on the having to do with the grand jury. And I hope we can have further conversation about that. Mr. Craig on meet the press on Sunday, November the 22nd of this year, just a couple weeks ago. The presser asked you, do you believe the president, president Clinton, ever lied under oath? And your statement was no. Do you stand by that? Mr. Craig, you can see that the president's testimony in the Jones case was evasive, incomplete, misleading, and even maddening. How could this, how could his testimony be those things and without being a lie? There's one element that's absolutely central to the perjury elements of an offense. And that is that an absolute intent and knowledge that, which, pardon me, Mr. Craig, are you saying that all lies are purgressed in?

No, I'm not. I'm talking about the elements. And now you're bringing in your perfect intent. He did not intend to help, he did not intend to volunteer. He tried, I think, to answer accurately in a very narrow way. You may conclude, Congressman, that he did not succeed. I can understand what he was trying to do and how he read that definition. He may not have been successful. I think we could defend that in any court in this country. Mr. Craig, I appreciate your assessment as a very capable lawyer and as someone who has studied the law, imagined the majority of her life. Could you please give me a succinct manner as humanly possible, your definition of what it means when you hold up your right hand and you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, so help you God. It means what the words of the oath are clearly intended to mean, the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. To, at this point, do you believe that the president has told the truth, the whole truth

and nothing but the truth, so help him God to the American people? I do not think he violated the oath knowingly when he testified in front of the Jones deposition. Do you think he's violated his oath to the American people and telling the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth? I disagree with your sense that he did. He did not violate his oath. First of all, I think we can acknowledge that the president has misled rather the American people. It has been said and it has been noted. Do you so note today? Yes, it's ma'am. Do you have knowledge that Miss Lewinsky had a diary? I understand that she did. Do you have any knowledge of whether the president maintained a personal diary with his reflections, impressions and comments? I'm unaware of any such documents. Is it your understanding that a diary that Miss Lewinsky had may have had her reflections, impressions and comments? I would suppose in the grand jury proceedings, as I understand, Miss Lewinsky had such

documents and the American people who have not viewed the grand jury proceedings as they are now viewing this really have never been inside of a grand jury proceedings. It is interesting that the grand jurors to date have been silenced on any indictments, but as we know the information, there was questioning and determination of credibility of the witnesses. It is also my understanding that in that instance Miss Lewinsky could refer to her impressions and announcements and characterizations in that particular proceeding. You can just simply answer in the grand jury, I assume a witness can refer to documents that they might have. I think she testified twice in front of the grand jury and was interviewed by agents of the office of Independent Council many, many times, 19 times. And may have had the opportunity to refer to her documents. With that in mind, Mr. Chairman, I would simply say you have here a question of the ability to determine credibility of witnesses where one has been able to refer to written line by line definitions and characterizations where another witness such as the president

may have had to rely upon his mere recollection, which is that of a mere human being. Again we go to the point of the whole question of credibility of witnesses. Mr. Craig, I don't think that there's a fact that's in other parts of the testimony before the grand jury that you could present to this committee. In fact, there's nothing that any of the witnesses here today could say to this committee that would prevent the majority of this committee from voting to impeach the President of the United States on Saturday afternoon. But your testimony is important. It's important that the American public understand the gravity of what we face. It's important that the 20 to 30 Republican members of Congress who truly have an open mind and a weighing the gravity of what's before our country that they watch a testimony and see a testimony. Because the will of the American people is about to be ignored and the hope that the

people won't care enough to say anything about it. Democratic members cited last month's election results and recent public opinion polls as evidence most Americans oppose impeachment of President Clinton. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am struck by each committee hearing that we have how more and more this committee becomes out of touch with the American people and with what the American people care about and even with what the American people see as the offense by the President in regard to this whole national trauma. But I think what the American people are saying, which I think is much more pertinent to this hearing, is who cares? Who cares where the President did or did not touch Ms. Lewinsky? Not because they don't care about lying, but they understand that an impeachment inquiry should not be determined by whether or not Ms. Lewinsky lied or the President lied or

whether they both lied about where the President may or may not have touched her. Talk to them, talk to them about what a Senate trial is going to look like. I have this vision of Senator Hatch asking Monica Lewinsky or our esteemed chairman asking Monica Lewinsky about the specifics of her relationship with the President and that being determinative of a perjury count. Would you speak to the American people about what that Senate trial is going to look like, please? Let me do. Either one. Either gentleman. Well, one should first know that at the trial of Andrew Johnson, no senator asked any questions. All questions were asked by the managers of the House and the Senate was mute mom in a very solemn situation here, which I would expect would go on for many, many months.

One of the more interesting phenomena would be to see how the senators manage this a burden of silence. But this is nothing like we have ever seen. I must tell you that it's only someone who asked me before whether when I was asked to testify, the answer is Saturday, but I've been studying impeachment for many, many years. And I literally tell the American people you have no idea of what the Senate trial is going to look like. It will disrupt the nation's business I would expect for a year. Yeah. Would you agree with that professor, Willans? I would. And also look around. I mean, in 1868, there weren't the photographers and the film crews and the TV cameras and the media circus that's around, that's been surrounding this proceeding from the beginning.

It's gone beyond a question of simply what's going to happen in the room, it's what goes out on throughout the country. And that to me is almost as dangerous as what's going on here in this chamber. And that's a vast difference in 1868, if 1868 was like a pebble in the pond, this is going to be like a boulder thrown into the pond. Republican Mary Bono was the last member to question the panel. As the last person here, I have to sit here and listen to 36 other members of 35 and come up with a question that nobody else has asked, which is very difficult. So it's a very simple one yet. I think it's very complex and it's one that most of America is asking. That is Mr. Craig, do you have small children at home? I do. What do you tell them? How do you explain to them that your president has lied and that it's okay? Oh, and it's not okay to lie, Congresswoman. I say that it's the most important thing in the world to tell the truth all the time. The whole truth.

And the whole truth. And I tell them that one of the reasons that the president is in such trouble is that he did not. He misled the American people. He misled his family. He misled his colleagues and that was wrong. And the president should have admitted that it was wrong earlier. He should have made full disclosure earlier and he did not and that was wrong. And that's a very important lesson to the children of this country, I think. All right, let me jump here and here if you will. I don't understand it. There's also difference perhaps between that and then again under oath before a court. Would he mislead the court? If he did mislead a court under oath, that would be wrong, it would be unlawful. That is for a court of law, a criminal court of law to resolve with all the protections that a court provides to a defendant. And most people that are working with the president in the defense believe that is a very likely possibility in the future.

Thank the panel for a great contribution, all of you. Thank you. The judiciary committee struggled to keep to Chairman Hyde's tight schedule. It worked through lunch, pausing only long enough to get afternoon witnesses seated. That second group of White House witnesses consisted of three former House members, all of whom served on the judiciary committee during the Watergate impeachment and all of whom voted to impeach President Richard Nixon. The committee will come to order, please. Ladies and gentlemen, our second panel is composed of three very distinguished former members of Congress, the Honorable Elizabeth Holzman, the Honorable Wayne Owens, and Father Robert Drenan. Former New York Congresswoman Elizabeth Holzman reflected on the 1974 Nixon impeachment panel on which she sat. Nearly a quarter of a century ago, sitting where you are now, I never imagined in my lifetime that we would see another impeachment proceeding. I'm saddened to be here today.

I love this committee, I love the Congress, and I love my country. But at this committee in the House, vote along party lines for the impeachment of President William Jefferson Clinton on the information presently available. The credibility of the committee and the Congress will be severely damaged for a long time. This impeachment will be viewed by the nation and by history, with as much disapproval of that as that of Andrew Johnson. I know that many on this committee and many in the country believe the President's conduct to be reprehensible and unacceptable. I do not disagree, and I'm not here to excuse that conduct. Let us remember, however, that the goal of impeachment is not to punish a President, but to protect the nation. Impeachment now will punish the nation, not protected. Consider how much the country will be harmed by an impeachment trial in the Senate, if the House votes any articles of impeachment. A trial which could last for months will disrupt the workings of the Supreme Court. The Chief Justice will have to preside every day over the Senate trial.

It will disrupt the workings of the Senate, it will disrupt the presidency. That is one of the reasons that impeachment cannot be voted lightly. The danger to the nation of having a President remain in office must be greater than the danger caused by the wholesale disruption of our government that an impeachment trial will bring. The American people are not likely to look kindly on a government shutdown, number two. Wayne Owens was a congressman from Utah in 1974. He said the charges against then President Richard Nixon were far weightier than those against President Clinton. I urge you to consider carefully the gravity of those charges which in overwhelming and bipartisan majority of the committee found to be sustained by not only clear and convincing evidence, but in fact by evidence beyond a reasonable doubt, the test for conviction in the Senate. It was obvious to us that President Nixon would go to trial in the Senate and we wanted to have a standard which would pass muster in the Senate.

President Nixon, it was clear one directed or authorized his subordinates to interfere with the impartial and non-political administration of the Internal Revenue Law for political purposes, he directed or authorized unlawful electronic surveillance and investigations of citizens in the use of information obtained from the surveillance for his own political advantage. Three, he permitted a secret investigative unit within the office of the President to engage in unlawful and covert activities for his political purposes, including abuse of the CIA. Four, once these and other unlawful and improper activities on his behalf were suspected and after he knew or had reason to know that his close subordinates were interfering with lawful investigations into them, he failed to perform his duty to see that the criminal laws were enforced against those subordinates and five. He used his executive power to interfere with the lawful operations of agencies of the executive branch, including the Department of Justice and the Central Intelligence Agency,

in order to assist in these activities as well as to conceal the truth about his misconduct and that of his subordinates and agents. Father Robert Dryden was a Democratic Judiciary Committee member from Massachusetts during the 1974 impeachment pro. He warned current committee members against allowing party affiliation to rule their process. In 1974, the members of the Democratic majority had constant conversation and dialogue with the Republican members, and I remember intimately going to the Republicans and sharing with them the destiny of this committee and the awesome task that had come to us. The Democrats were aware of the intense problems that the Republicans had with the impeachment of a Republican president, but eventually through the sheer force of the evidence, six or seven of the Republicans voted for one or more articles of impeachment. I hope, ladies and gentlemen, that history will not decree that the House Judiciary Committee made a profound mistake in 1998, and that this party will go down in the history books

as when it was dominated by vindictiveness and by vengeance and by partisanship. The votes cast by each member will be the most important vote cast by that person as a member of Congress, and history will discover and record and remember whether that vote was done for partisan reasons. A vote to impeach in this case would have dire consequences for years and even decades to come, almost 70% of the nation and virtually every Democrat in the Congress are opposed to impeachment. These groups believe firmly that even if all the allegations in the star report are true, there are no impeachable offenses, and I would anticipate members of the committee an explosion of anger like that, like occurred after the Saturday Night, could happen in this country. When people realize what you people anticipate, you will do this Saturday, and when it goes to the whole House, an explosion of anger just like happened 24 years ago when

Mr. Richardson and Mr. Cox did some brave things. I found the driving in Europe's statement, I've written statement, I regretfully, I cannot find the word vengeance. And I think that you intoned it in your direct testimony that some of us or people who are considering the impeachment of the president or considering the articles of impeachment are driven by vengeance. Did you mean that? Did you say the word vengeance or did I miss here you, because it's not in the document? Or did me? That term is not in the document now. You used it though. You used it in your oral statement. Do you seriously believe that any member of this committee or any member of the House in the final judgment that he or she will render on impeachment proceedings or articles of impeachment will be driven by vengeance? I'll leave God to judge that. And then maybe God's messengers should not prejudge the God that would make the judgment.

Some Republicans found their own comparisons to the Watergate impeachment. Now many people have compared this crisis to Watergate. There are similarities and there are distinctions. I recall during the days of Watergate those who opposed impeachment simply said, my gosh, it's only a second rate burglary, it was the big deal. Well it was indeed a big deal because it involved cover up. It involved obstruction of justice. It involved abuse of power. It involved the use of government employees, taxpayer subsidized, by the way, paid by the taxpayers to lie, to evade, to deceive, so it extended far beyond a second rate burglary. Now nearly a quarter of a century later we hear people who are opposed to impeachment in this as this. Well my gosh, it only involves consensual sex among consenting adults. What's the big deal?

Well the big deal may be a duplication of Watergate problems. Cover up evasion, lying, deception, using government employees, paid for by the taxpayers I might add again, to cover up, it may go beyond that. And I resent the fact that some accuse us of vengeance. I don't mean to speak for anyone, but I suspect very few in the Watergate era who sat on that House Judiciary Committee were gleeful about that exercise. Now there may have been one or two fire brands. There may be one or two fire brands here today who were gleeful about it. But I dare say that the great majority of Democrats and Republicans alike on this Judiciary Committee are not gleeful at all about this. But I don't think we can afford to dismiss the facts that have been laid at our feet. The Constitution requires us to respond.

And if we vote in favor of impeachment then we're accused of being partisan fire brands and I resent it. And I think most Americans will probably resent it. And I'm getting a little carried away Mr. Chairman, but I think I need to say this. Many people have made a big point, a salient point about the partisanship of this committee. Well this is an energized, spirited, polarized group I will admit. And when the television lights are illuminated, that energy seems to intensify. But for the benefit of our viewers, we get along pretty well with one another once those TV lights are extinguished. Pretty good group, pretty good men and women together, I might add. Most folks don't know that because they see the other side of it, but we're going about our business. And if anybody thinks this vengeance is involved, I'll meet him in the parking lot later on tonight. I do. Members also took note of calls from inside and outside Congress for President Clinton

to apologize further for misleading the public. Democrat Charles Schumer asked how an apology by President Nixon would have affected his impeachment. I am still sort of more than sort of. I am still very perplexed by the view of some of the more moderate Republicans. I guess none of them on this committee, but a good number of the swing votes have expressed a view that, well, if only the president would make a full some apology, President believes he has apologized already, but one I guess that's fuller and more direct or whatever or reiterated again, that then maybe they would vote against impeachment and for a lesser penalty. And it seems to me that that is a specious standard. I mean, here we are dealing with impeachment. One of the most serious things this committee, this Congress can do.

And it should be related to the actions of the president and whether they rise to the level of high crimes and misdemeanors, whether they rise to the high level, that we have heard so many witnesses talk about, not about either an apology or about whether the president answered the questions to the liking of the members of this committee or to the members of the Congress. So I would just wonder each of you having gone through this, having thought about this, in a historic sense. Do you think, to ever cross your mind, let's say if Richard Nixon offered a full apology late in the day that you would then, I mean, should that have influenced your decision as to whether he deserved impeachment? Mr. Owens. If impeachment is a political decision, and it is, my sense is that if Richard Nixon write up to the point of when the Judiciary Committee undertook its debate at the end of July of

1974, had he gone public and said I apologize, I committed serious offenses, I thought I was acting in the public's interest. My sense as the public would probably have forgiven him, and the Judiciary Committee would have voted articles of impeachment, but certainly even if the House passed them, the Senate would not have convicted. When the three smoking guns turned up, in which Mr. Nixon was found to have directed the CIA to tell the FBI to back off Watergate within, as I recall, 30 hours of the breaking at Watergate, until that came out, I think perhaps he might have escaped because I think the public at that time did not want to impeach even that unpopular president. North Carolina Democrat Mel Watt asked about the role of partisan politics in the Watergate era.

Can you talk to me a little bit about how, I mean, because one of the things that I've been really trouble about is that this process has become so partisan and so viewed by the public as being so partisan that I think even that has colored the public's perception of even the credibility of the arguments on the other side could do. It was an exceedingly painful decision. For me, especially, I was running for the Senate in the most Republican state in the nation, the Democrat, where Richard Nixon had gotten 72 percent of the vote two years earlier, and I was confident that that would be a serious political problem for me. And the only refuge, Mr. Congressman, is in what is your realistic view of what the evidence requires, given the serious constitutional obligations that are imposed upon the committee, you just have to say, consequences be damned.

I will do what my conscience tells me I have to do under the circumstances. It was a very heavy responsibility, and I honest to God had no second thoughts about voting for impeachment. Republicans said members of the current committee also should rely on their consciences to determine how they deal with impeachment. Ed Bryant of Tennessee noted that there was little public support for impeaching President Nixon 24 years ago. Back in 1974, when you folks were sitting in these seats, your Democrat chairman of this committee faced similar circumstances in terms of the troubles that this country had been through at that point, and probably a sentiment in America that just didn't want to do this. And in his opening statement in the Congressional Record, Mr. Rodino eloquently states, it has been said that our country, troubled by too many crises in recent years, is too tired to consider this one. In the first year of the republic, Thomas Paine wrote, those who expect to reap the blessings

of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it for almost 200 years Americans have undergone the stress of preserving their freedom and the Constitution that protects it. It is now our turn. I'm also concerned about what I perceive to be a double standard. Not necessarily promulgated by this panel, but certainly it has been suggested throughout the day by some witnesses and, quite frankly, some of my colleagues. We are constantly being reminded that there are polls that have been taken that suggest that the American people do not want the President to be impeached and therefore Congress should abrogate their constitutional obligations and simply follow the polls. I reject that notion. The polls are interesting. It's something we politicians like to look at. But if that were the standard, we would simply just shut down the legislative executive and judicial branches in turn, legislating over to Dr. Gallup's organization. Mr. Rogan was talking about the efficacy of polls in our political careers and I'd like

to ask Father Drian in a question if he would on polls. Someone said that if Jesus had taken a poll, he would never have preached the gospel. Do you agree? You'll be on my realm, Mr. Graham. I hope not. Mr. Graham. Well, thank you. Being a Baptist, that gets me going here. Let me make a couple observations and I really do appreciate you coming. I've talked to at least one of you privately and this is very difficult. It's not light watergate. It's not exactly what you were dealing with. And many ways what you were dealing with was probably more serious or at least you could put your hands around it and say it's more serious. We really got a dig in this case, but I do believe this, that if we impeach a president based on a consensual sexual affair, no matter how inappropriate, we're going to screw this country up part of the terms. And I don't mean to be crude about it, but we're really going to mess this country up. And that has always been off the table for me because I don't want to go down that road

because we have elections and impeachment should be reserved for very serious offenses like you were dealing with. And I would say this to you that if every Republican had voted no during your time, history would acquit you well, you were right to have voted to remove President Nixon. Let me tell you what I'm becoming more and more concerned about. This is more like Peyton Place than it is Watergate, but there's a component to this case, this very unnerving. Richard Nixon cheated the electoral process. I think Richard Nixon didn't trust the American people to get it right in election and he had operatives going and breaking into the other side's office. And when he knew about it, he cheated to cover it up. I believe that like Richard Nixon, Bill Clinton, was very involved in unlawful activity to cheat the legal system. I am willing with some admissions on his part and reconciliation on his part to the law. There are another disposition because this is not totally like Watergate.

However, if he does not reconcile himself with the law, if he continues to dance on ahead of a pen, if he continues to bring people in here who won't say anything about the facts but tell me how to vote, I don't think he has the character to be our president. And I will vote to impeach him based on what he did, not based on any other Senator motive. I yield back the balance of my time. I hope the gentleman, the general lady from California, Ms. Bono. My question is to you, Ms. Holtzman. Somebody I respect and I look, I admire for having been in the seat years ago. If in 1974, you would have had no Republican support whatsoever, would you still have reported out of those articles of impeachment? Well, I know you go back to that because you find yourself in a very awkward position where you don't have the support and there's no bipartisan support. So I want to urge what my colleague Wayne Owen said, which is to find an alternative that can bring Republicans and Democrats together because the legitimacy, even if you are voting in your conscience, in the end, how does the public judge the legitimacy of these

proceedings? If it is bipartisan, if there's a common ground found, that is something that the people can take away with and say, the Congress acted properly. But if it doesn't, then they're befuddled and confused and bewildered. And that's what I'm saying. This is such a serious effort. I don't mean to minimize the search in your conscience or the difficulty of this job. I was there. It's not easy. As the day turned to evening, the committee's leading Democrat, John Conyers, repeated the view of most Democrats that the charges against President Clinton simply don't warrant impeachment. Ladies and gentlemen, are we serious? Do we really intend for the second time in our history to impeach a president over a case that holds out these weak, puny, perjury charges as its foundation? Do we wonder why this committee's ratings are not going up?

We're in trouble here inside of this room. The charges against the president when stripped away of partisan rhetoric and factual gaps are in reality a paper tiger. Do we, on the Democratic side, contest the charges, we sure do. And we assert that this committee has done no independent factual inquiry, no evidentiary witnesses. And as it is incumbent upon them to do, to justify any case of impeachment. And I'm delighted to, if the chairman would allow any of you that would like to make a comment about my assertions. And I think we all have to pray for each other so that we can come to the right decision. That's a very happy...

That's a very happy... That's a very happy note to end this session on. The day's final panel of White House Witnesses contrasted the evidence presented by independent counsel Kenneth Starr with that considered in the Watergate investigation. The session began with Richard Ben Vanista, who was an assistant prosecutor of the Watergate case against President Nixon. I confess that I have spent more than one sleepless night considering whether anything that I can say will help extricate us all from the terrible mess that we're in. In my view, this process has suffered from too much partisanship, too much hypocrisy, too much sensationalism, and too little time for reflection. I ask whether impeachment will become still another arrow in the quiver of the warrior class of ever more truculent partisan politicians in Washington. If this is so, will we ever see an end to the game'smanship of gotcha and payback that

has already taken such a toll in the civility and comedy within these hallowed halls. I continue to believe that respect for the momentousness of the constitutional remedy of impeachment and appreciation of the common sense application of proportionality to the offensive conduct, make a resolution of censure the appropriate result. Such a resolution, not impeachment, will give voice to the public will in retaining their twice-elected presidents' services while expressing firm disapproval for his private conduct. In my view, such a resolution would be consistent with the obligations of the House of Representatives and in the best interests of our nation. James Hamilton, a lawyer for the Senate Watergate Committee, said he, too, opposes impeachment of President Clinton.

The notion of great and dangerous offenses against the state captures the essence of what an impeachable offense should be. It must be, as Alexander Hamilton said, it must relate chiefly to injuries done to the society itself. A president should not be impeached to subject him to punishment, but rather to protect the state and society against great and dangerous offenses that might reoccur if he is allowed to remain in office. I respectfully submit that the alleged abuses by President Clinton do not indicate that he is a danger to the nation. Lying to the public and to his cabinet in AIDS is disgraceful, but if we would impeach all officials who lie about personal or official matters, I fear that the halls of government would be seriously depleted. Democrats asked about allegations of misconduct by independent counsel Kenneth Starr. Do you think that Mr. Starr's misconduct, if misconduct, it be, as any relevance to the fact

findings? I think there is, I think, to the extent that all inferences have been drawn in the referral received by this committee, by Mr. Starr, against the president that there has been selectivity involved, that there has not been investigation of the activities of certain people who are responsible for starting the work. Well there is more to look at than has been looked at. The other question is, is it the president's job to prove his innocence rather than the out with their way around? Well I would think Congressman that it is the job of this committee to convince itself that the president has engaged in impeachable conduct. The majority seems to be relying basically upon Mr. Starr's analysis, and I think tomorrow the White House is going to give you their analysis of the grand jury record. But the bottom line is this committee has an obligation to do what it thinks is necessary

to ascertain the facts that would support impeachment, or support not a reason to judge his advice. Late today, the White House released a 184 page rebuttal of charges made by independent counsel Kenneth Starr. The president's attorneys are expected to conclude their defense of Mr. Clinton tomorrow. They will call for former federal prosecutors to testify about standards for prosecuting charges of perjury and obstruction of justice. President that concludes our special report on today's House Judiciary Committee impeachment hearing. Gavil to Gavil coverage continues tonight on many PBS stations. Join Jim Lehrer tomorrow morning at 8 Eastern Time on many public television stations for live coverage when the committee reconvenes and for reports and analysis on the news hour tomorrow evening. I will be back with another one hour summary tomorrow night. More information about the impeachment inquiry can be found on the news hour online. I'm Kwame Holman. Thank you for joining us. Good night.

Brought to you in part by ADM, Feeding the World is the biggest challenge of the new century, which is why ADM is conducting research into aquaculture and other new food sources, ADM, supermarket to the world. And by Solomon Smith Barney. Is an arthritis cure around the corner? Some things for sure, opportunities abound. Let's get to work. Solomon Smith Barney. Local funding has been provided by viewers like you. The Democracy Project.

This is PBS.