The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer

JIM LEHRER: Good evening. I'm Jim Lehrer. On the NewsHour tonight independent counsel Kenneth Starr's testimony before the House Judiciary Committee. We have extended excerpts plus reaction from two members of the committee, Republican Bill McCollum and Democrat Zoe Lofgren; then commentary from Stuart Taylor of the National Journal and Newsweek and author/journalist Elizabeth Drew. We'll have the other news of this Thursday at the end of the program tonight.% ? FOCUS - GOING PUBLIC

JIM LEHRER: The Starr testimony. It began this morning with his reading, a 58-page prepared statement. Kwame Holman reports.

KWAME HOLMAN: Members of the House Judiciary Committee and the public already knew for the most part what independent counsel Kenneth Starr would say during the two hours allotted for his opening statement. His detailed report on possible impeachable offenses committed by President Clinton was released two months ago, and advanced copies of today's statement began to circulate last night. But it was the first time the public got to hear Kenneth Starr make his case against the President. Starr was introduced by committee chairman Henry Hyde.

REP. HENRY HYDE: Throughout our history, we have had a number of impeachment inquiries, butthis one represents a historical first - never before has an impeachment inquiry arisen because of a referral from an independent counsel under section 595[c] of the statute. For that reason, we have no precedent tofollow on the involvement of the independent counsel in our proceedings. However, it seems both useful and instructive that we should hear from him, since he is the person most familiar with the complicated matters the House has directed us to review. Today the search for the truth continues as we turn to the underlying facts. And as we begin that search, we turn to the one person, Judge Starr, who has a comprehensive overview of the complex issues we face.

KWAME HOLMAN: Speaking for the Democrats, the committee's ranking member, John Conyers, used his opening statement to launch a stinging attack against Kenneth Starr.

REP. JOHN CONYERS: The idea of a federally paid sex policeman spending millions of dollars to trap an unfaithful spouse or the police civil -- or the police civil litigation would have been unthinkable prior to the Starr investigation. Let there be no mistake -- it is not now acceptable in America to investigate a person's private sexual activity. It is not acceptable for rogue attorneys and investigators to trap a young woman in a hotel room, discourage her from calling her lawyer, ridicule her when she asked to call her mother. But the record suggests, I'm sorry to say, that is precisely how Kenneth W. Starr has conducted this investigation.

KWAME HOLMAN: There also was a brief partisan skirmish. Democrats demanded tripling the 30 minutes the President's personal attorney, David Kendall, would have to question Starr. They were voted down by the Republican majority, and the independent counsel then proceeded with a statement that lasted more than hours.

KENNETH STARR: Let me then begin with an overview. As our referral explains, the evidence suggests that the President made false statements under oath and thwarted the search for truth in Jones versus Clinton. The evidence further suggests that the president made false statements under oath to the grand jury on August 17 of this year. That same night, the president publicly acknowledged an inappropriate relationship, but maintained that his testimony had been legally accurate. The president also declared that all inquiries into the matter should end, because, he said, it was private. Indeed, the evidence suggests that the president repeatedly tried to thwart the legal process in the Jones matter and in the grand jury investigation. That is not a private matter. The evidence further suggests that the president in the course of those efforts misused his authority and his power as president and contravened his duty to faithfully execute the laws. That, too, is not a private matter. At the outset, I want to emphasize that our referral never suggests that the relationship between the president and Ms. Lewinsky, in and of itself, could constitute a high crime or misdemeanor. Indeed, the referral never passes judgment on the president's relationship with Ms. Lewinsky. The propriety of a relationship is not the concern of our office. The referral is instead about obstruction of justice, lying under oath, tampering with witnesses and the misuse of power. The referral cannot be understood without appreciating this vital distinction. This case or matter thus raises the following initial question: Is a plaintiff in a sexual harassment lawsuit entitled to obtain truthful information from the defendant and from associates of the defendant in order to support her claim? That should be easy to answer. No citizen who finds himself accused in a sexual harassment case, or in any other kind of case, can lie under oath or otherwise obstruct justice and thereby prevent the plaintiff from discovering evidence and presenting her case. Let me summarize the five points that explain how the president's relationship with Ms. Lewinsky -- what was otherwise private conduct -- became a matter of concern to the courts. This is critical to fully understand the nature of the committee's inquiry. One, the president was sued for sexual harassment in federal court, and the Supreme Court of the United States ruled in that case that the case should go forward. Two. The law of sexual harassment and the law of evidence allow the plaintiff to inquire into the defendant's relationship with other women -- with women in the workplace, which, in this case, included the president's relationship with Ms. Lewinsky. Three. Applying those subtle legal principles, Judge Susan Webber Wright repeatedly rejected the president's objections to such inquiries. The judge instead ordered the president to answer the questions. Four. It is a federal crime to commit perjury and obstruct justice in civil cases, including sexually harassment cases. Violators are subject to a sentence of up to 10 years imprisonment for obstruction and five years for perjury. Five. The evidence suggest that the president and Ms. Lewinsky made false statements under oath and obstructed the judicial process in the Jones case by preventing the court from obtaining the truth about the relationship. The key point about the president's conduct is this. On at least six different occasions, from December 17, 1997, through August 17, 1998, the president had to make a decision. He could choose truth, or he could choose deception. On all six occasions, the president chose deception -- a pattern of calculated behavior over a span of months. The conversation between the president and Ms. Lewinsky on December 17 was a critical turning point. The evidence suggests that the president chose to engage in a criminal act -- to reach an understanding with Ms. Lewinsky that they would both make false statements under oath. At that moment, the president's intimate relationship with a subordinate employee was transformed. It was transformed into an unlawful effort to thwart the judicial process. This was no longer an issue of private conduct. Meanwhile, the legal process continued to unfold and the president took other actions that had the foreseeable effect of keeping Ms. Lewinsky on the team. The president helped Ms. Lewinsky obtain a job in New York. Vernon Jordan, who had been enlisted in the job search for Ms. Lewinsky, testified that he kept the president informed of the status of Ms. Lewinsky's job search and her affidavit. On January 7, 1998, Mr. Jordan told the president that Ms. Lewinsky had signed the affidavit. Mr. Jordan stated to the president that he was still working on getting her a job. The president replied, "Good." In other words, the president, knowing that a witness had just signed a false affidavit, encouraged his friend to continue trying to find her a job. After Ms. Lewinsky received a job offer from Revlon on January 12 -- thank you. Vernon Jordan called the president and said: "Mission accomplished. Let me turn to the president's January 17 deposition. The president made false statements not only about his intimate relationship with Ms. Lewinsky, but about a whole host of matters. The president testified that he did not know that Vernon Jordan had met with Ms. Lewinsky and talked about the Jones case; that was untrue. He testified that he could not recall being alone with Ms. Lewinsky; that was untrue. He testified that he could not recall ever being in the Oval Office hallway with Ms. Lewinsky, except perhaps when she was delivering pizza; that was untrue. He testified that he could not recall gifts exchanged between Ms. Lewinsky and him; that was untrue. He testified, after a 14-second pause, that he was not sure whether he had ever talked to Ms. Lewinsky about the possibility that she might be asked to testify in the lawsuit; that was untrue. The president testified that he did not know whether Ms.Lewinsky had been served a subpoena at the time that he last saw her in December 1997; that was untrue. When his attorney read Ms. Lewinsky's affidavit denying a sexual relationship, the president stated that the affidavit was absolutely true; that was untrue. The president testified before the grand jury on August 17th. Indeed, the president made false statements to the grand jury and then that same evening spoke to the nation and criticized all attempts to show that he had done so as invasive and irrelevant.

KWAME HOLMAN: Starr spent more than an hour detailing evidence in the Lewinsky matter. He then moved on to the other investigations concerning President Clinton he was authorized to look into. Regarding the firings of White House Travel Office employees and the possession by White House personnel of the FBI files of prominent Republicans during the president's firm, Starr said he found no evidence of wrongdoing. He did, however, go into depth about the original case he was mandated to investigate - the Whitewater land deal the Clintons invested in. That investigation resulted in 14 convictions.

KENNETH STARR: -- including the former Associate Attorney General of the United States, Webster Hubbell, the then- sitting Governor of Arkansas, Jim Guy Tucker, and the Clintons' two business partners, Jim and Susan McDougal.

KWAME HOLMAN: And Starr said he found evidence suggesting wrongdoing by the President as well.

KENNETH STARR: In late 1997, we -- in our office -- considered whether this evidence that I have just described justified a referral to Congress. We drafted a report. But we concluded that it would be inconsistent with the statutory standard because of the difficulty of establishing the truth with a sufficient degree of confidence. With that, let me be the first to say that the Lewinsky investigation, in particular, presented some of the most challenging issues that any lawyer or investigator could face. Major decisions during the Lewinsky investigation have not been easy. And given the hurricane force winds swirling about us, we were well aware that no matter what decision we made, criticism would come from somewhere. As Attorney General Reno has said, in high-profile cases like these -- not referring to this case, but in high-profile cases -- you are, in her words, "damned if you do and damned if you don't. So you'd better just do what you think is the right and proper thing."

JIM LEHRER: After the lunch break, the committee's Democratic counsel, Abbe Lowell, was the first to question Starr. Again, Kwame Holman reports.

KWAME HOLMAN: Abbe Lowell's first question to Kenneth Starr was about what Lowell called the adversarial tone of Starr's impeachment report to the House of Representatives.

ABBE LOWELL: This is how your report has been described. "It is a report that marshals and characterizes the information into an aggressive piece of legal advocacy. It is one where there are few of the factual assertions are left to speak for themselves. In short, it is a document with an attitude. It is notable for its failure to acknowledge that there might be more than one way to view at least some of the evidence." And that was from the Supreme Court report of The New York Times, Linda Greenhouse, on September the 12th, 1998. It cannot be your testimony, is it, Mr. Starr, that the 595 [c] background material that you say to this committee, which was involved in reviewing that statute that you reviewed, required you to make the accusations, conclusions -- in short, have a referral with an attitude? Is it?

KENNETH STARR: My opinion of the statute, or my reading and interpretation of the statute, Mr. Lowell, is that I am called upon to establish the reason that in the independent counsel's view the matters that I send before you may constitute a grounds for impeachment. That's a very serious and weighty matter. And weapproached it as a very serious and weighty manner. I stand behind this referral, and I'm sure there will be questions about it. What we tried to do in this referral was to assemble in an organized form, rather than sending you simply truckloads of unorganized information, give it coherence, and then it is your judgment, and, thus, if it is the judgment that this referral has not in fact stood the test of your close examination. Did we get the facts wrong? Then of course you should come to your own judgment and your own assessment. But this reflects, just so the committee knows, the views of some of the most experienced prosecutors in the country. I stand behind it because it is mine. I stand behind each word of it. It is my ultimate judgment. But this is a professional product, it's not the product of one single person.

KWAME HOLMAN: Lowell also called on Starr to defend the actions of his investigators on the day they first approached Monica Lewinsky.

ABBE LOWELL: In Monica Lewinsky's sworn testimony, which, if you'd like, you could follow in tab 21 to compare it back and forth -- we will have it on the stand as well -- she testified under oath that she was there to have lunch with Linda Tripp. She was then accosted by agents who flashed their badges at her. She asked to see her attorney, was told that that wasn't such a good idea. She was then asked to go upstairs to discuss how much trouble she was in, and then she reluctantly went upstairs to meet with your staff. Do you think your statement that Monica Lewinsky consented to meet with several agents doesn't distort the picture of what really happened that day?

KENNETH STARR: Well, I think it was consensual. That is we made it clear that she was not under arrest, and that she was, in fact, at liberty to make a decision as to what she wanted to do. ABBE LOWELL: Well, if you look at the second line of your quote -- of your press statement, you said, during the five hours while awaiting her mother's arrival, Ms. Lewinsky drank juice and coffee, ate dinner at a restaurant, strolled around the Pentagon City mall, and watched television. Do you remember making that statement to the press?

KENNETH STARR: Yes, I do.ABBE LOWELL: But your statement to the press, Mr. Starr, doesn't include the facts that Ms. Lewinsky swore to that she was scared and was crying a lot of the time. When she asked to see her attorney -- "She would not be able to help herself with her attorney there" she was told; that she was threatened with going to jail for -- "27 years"; that she was not there for the five hours that your press statement says, but was there for over 10 hours; and that when she asked to call her mother to discuss what you were discussingwith her, your deputy, Jackie Bennett, said: "You're 24. You're smart. You're old enough. You don't need to call your mommy." That wasn't in your statement to the press that day, was it?

KENNETH STARR: No, it wasn't, Mr. Lowell. And let me explain what press statements are designed to do. [laughter in room] This was not designed to provide a verbatim transcript of commentary. They are designed to respond to what we were, in fact, being accused of or charged with. And what we were being accused of and charged with was improper conduct with a witness. Now, the facts of the matter are these. We did, in fact, use a traditional technique that law enforcement always uses. We were waiting patiently for her mother to arrive. She chose not to make a decision before her mother arrived. And at the conclusion of her time with us, she had established a legal relationship, which we fully recognized andalways honored. And she and her mother indicated -- I was not there -- but I am told, they indicated their appreciation for the way in which she was being treated. Now, this was in response -- this was being in response, Mr. Lowell -- to allegations that she was being subjected to the kinds of conditions that wouldoverbear the will. We then -- and the purpose of this was to say, here, is, in fact, material that the public should, in fact, know. And all of this is absolutely true.

KWAME HOLMAN: Lowell's questioning of Starr took more than an hour. Starr then faced questions from the 37-member committee coming at him in short, five-minute bursts.

REP. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, [R] Wisconsin: Let me ask you, Judge Starr, do you believe that there is any difference in the law of perjury and the law of making false statements to a grand jury just because they happen to relate to sexual matters?

KENNETH STARR: They do not, Mr. Sensenbrenner. As I have tried to indicate in the opening statement, as we've indicated in the referral, perjury is extraordinarily serious business. It is insidious. The courthouse cannot operate if perjury is allowed to either be excused or to be minimized. And why should we, in fact, go through the process of saying there is an oath, we want you tell your - we want your honesty - that's what we ask in court - we want your honesty - and it does not matter whether the issue has to do with sexual harassment or bankruptcy or the criminal law. It is all dreadfully serious. And in my reading, I know that there is scholarly commentary to the opposite effect, perjury would, in fact, have been viewed as an impeachable offense at the time of the founding of the republic. And courts from that time on have taken perjury as extraordinarily serious, regardless of the kind of case.

REP. JOHN CONYERS: Let me ask you about the Travelgate and FBI files, which you did not mention the exoneration of the President in your reference. Why - did you include any exculpatory information in your reference and why didn't you put it in there, instead of putting it in your statement here?

KENNETH STARR: We put the statement here - you're right - we did not include that in the referral because of my views of what the referral was supposed to do. What I viewed this invitation as being was to try to - because I was invited and pursuant to that invitation, we reflected on what is the information that you might need, because we have been told, Mr. Conyers, by the Congress - you know - don't be holding things back -- if you have information that could be relevant, provide it, and that's what we have, in fact, been trying to do. Now, if there's a sense that we're providing too much information, we'll be guided by that, because we're trying to be helpful.

REP. BARNEY FRANK: You tell us that months ago you concluded that the president was not involved in the FBI files, and you've never had any evidence he was involved in the Travel Office. Yet, now, several weeks after the election is the first time you're saying that. Why would you withhold that before the election when you were sending us a referral with a lot of negative stuff about the president and only now, despite your saying that the statute suggests you tell us as soon as possible, you give us this exoneration of the president, several weeks after the election?

KENNETH STARR: Mr. Frank, what we have tried to do is be responsive to Congress, which has said, provide us with information, is there any other additional information that would be useful?

REP. BARNEY FRANK: But why didn't you tell us before the election about this, according to your reading of the statute?

KENNETH STARR: Congressman Frank, the reason is because what we provided you in the referral is substantial and credible information of possible potential offense. The silence, with respect to anything else, means necessarily that we had not concluded -

REP. BARNEY FRANK: In other words, you don't have anything to say unless you have something bad to say. You've concluded in the FBI files - you said you concluded in the FBI files that there was nothing involving the president. Why don't you tell us?

SPOKESMAN: Mr. Chairman, point of order.

REP. HENRY HYDE: The gentleman's time has expired; however, I would yield to the witness such time as you need to answer the many questions Mr. Frank has put to you.

KENNETH STARR: Well, again, there is a process of question. The purpose of this referral was to provide you with what we had found substantial and credible information. That's point one. The final point I would say is we still have an investigation, as I indicated, underway. And with respect to both FBI files, we've indicated that, and the Travel Office, I've drawn a distinction between the two matters, but I'm reporting to you so you know that as of this time we do not believe that there is any information in either of those matters, Congressman Frank, that would be relevant to you.

REP. BILL McCOLLUM: In this particular case, a number of our colleagues on this panel have suggested that because the Paula Jones case was dismissed and ultimately settled, or because there was, indeed, a throwing out by the judge -- albeit appealed -- of the underlying question of whether or not there was any relevance to the testimony about other people being sexually harassed as being relevant to that case, that somehow, therefore, if the president lied in that case, it's immaterial. Were the elements of perjury present when the president lied under oath, as you've described it in that Paula Jones case? And, particularly, was materiality present?

KENNETH STARR: Materiality is not affected. It is a totally bogus argument to suggest that because the lawsuit is eventually settled or dismissed that an act -- let's call it perjury; we've said, you know, a false statement under oath. That's the way we presented it to you. That is simply and utterly, demonstrably wrong as a matter of law.

REP. CHARLES SCHUMER, [D] New York: On August 20th, 1998, Ms. Lewinsky testified that -- "no one ever asked me to lie and I was never promised a job for my silence." That was in response to a question by a grand juror. Let me ask you again, because I know Mr. Lowell asked this, but I didn't find the answer adequate. Why wasn't this statement directly included in your 455-page referral to Congress -- not in a footnote and not paraphrased? Isn't that relevant -- trenchantly relevant information about what we're doing? And if you are so dispassionate about simply producing the facts, why wouldn't you have includedthe statement verbatim and in quotes, particularly on a matter as important as impeachment?

KENNETH STARR: We did supply the information. The reason that you're having, of course, these questions, with respect to the referral, is because we produced everything that was relevant to your assessment of Ms. Lewinsky, and I stand by what we said in page 174 of the referral. I think it's fair, in light of our assessment, but your assessment, of course, may very well be different with respect tothat one item.

REP. CHARLES SCHUMER: I asked why you didn't put it in the report, in full, fully quoted.

KENNETH STARR: STARR: Because we do not think that that is consistent with the truth, and it would be misleading to say, in our judgment, and I understand you may disagree with this, but we specifically said at page 174, not in a footnote: "Ms. Lewinsky has stated that the president never explicitly told her to lie." If one finds that inadequate, then one find its inadequate. It is your judgment.

REP. ELTON GALLEGLY, [R] California: I'd like to know your observation of the witnesses, and in evaluating the corroborating evidence, assess the truthfulness, specifically of Monica Lewinsky, Betty Currie and Vernon Jordan. If you could kind of give us a brief assessment of how you feel their credibility is.

KENNETH STARR: It is with some reluctance that I answer this because of fundamental fairness concerns. But let me say this: With respect to Ms. Lewinsky, I think she desperately does not want to hurt the president. And at the same time, she has a very considerable memory, a recollection, a memory bank of relevant facts that is quite significant. With respect to Betty Currie, as the -

REP. HENRY HYDE: Would the witness withhold for a moment? Those questions are tough questions. I wonder if it isn't awkward for the witness to assess -

REP. ELTON GALLEGLY: Well, perhaps - briefly -- Judge Starr, if we could revisit the Jones deposition. The president was asked whether he had ever given any gifts to Ms. Lewinsky. Does the evidence gathered indicate that the president gave false or misleading testimony when he answered, "I don't recall?"

KENNETH STARR: Yes, our assessment, and this was an assessment shared by the very experienced and career prosecutors, was that the events of December 28, 1997, must have been so clear and vivid in any reasonable person's recollection that the president would naturally have recalled that on January 17, 1998, less than one month later, given the nature of the events, which are undisputed, of what happened during that Oval Office visit by Ms. Lewinsky to the president over the holiday period. So the recollection was so clear -- or the events were so clear that to suggest that one doesn't recall a Rockettes blanket and the like, the various gifts that were shared between the two just, in our view, defied credulity, especially in light of the fact that we did have testimony, which is now before you, that the president is blessed with one of the most powerful memories that many people who have come in contact with a wide variety of people have ever seen. So we're told, the president's memory is extremely strong.

REP. ELTON GALLEGLY: Judge Starr, would you say that it would be reasonable to say that might be selective recall?

KENNETH STARR: Well I don't like to get into characterization, but I would simply say, I would not resist such a characterization.

KWAME HOLMAN: As the committee's questioning continued into the evening, the president's attorney, David Kendall, waited for his turn to question independent counsel Kenneth Starr.% ? FOCUS - THE IMPEACHMENT HEARINGS

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.

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.

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.% ? FOCUS

JIM LEHRER: Andto 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 torqamada, 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?

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.% ? NEWS SUMMARY

JIM LEHRER: In the other news of this day President Clinton arrived in Japan to begin his five-day visit to Asia. He met with the emperor and empress at the Imperial Palace. Later, he attended a banquet, where he exchanged toasts with Prime Minister Obuchi. Mr. Clinton praised him and said his government was moving in the right direction to recover from recession. The President also took part in a televised town hall meeting where the Lewinsky matter came up. He was asked about his apology to his wife and daughter.

REPORTER: [speaking through interpreter] I will never be able to give my husband for doing that, but did they really forgive you, Mr. President?

PRESIDENT CLINTON: Well, I did it in a direct and straightforward manner, and I believe they did, yes. But that's really a question you could ask them better than me.

JIM LEHRER: The President goes to South Korea tomorrow. In Israel today Prime Minister Netanyahu's cabinet approved the first stage of the Wye River peace deal, the withdrawal of Israeli soldiers from part of the West Bank. In Iraq today, UN arms inspectors and their Iraqi escorts made a second trip to suspected weapons sites. Meanwhile, US Navy ships passed through the Suez Canal on their way to the Persian Gulf. They were sent to back up military forces that were poised to attack Iraq to force compliance with the UN inspections. At the Pentagon, Defense Secretary Cohen spoke at a news conference with his British counterpart, George Robertson. British Secretary Robertson said his country stands behind the United States in its readiness to punish Iraq with military strikes, should it again flout UN inspections. % ? RECAP

JIM LEHRER: We'll see you online and again here tomorrow evening. We'll also be back later tonight on many public television stations with a one-hour summary oftoday's impeachment hearings. Check your local TV listing for the times in your area. I'm Jim Lehrer. Thank you and good night.