The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer

JIM LEHRER: Good evening. I'm Jim Lehrer. On the NewsHour tonight full coverage of day two of the President's defense before the House impeachment inquiry with reaction from two members of the House and commentary by Tom Oliphant of the Boston Globe and Stuart Taylor of the National Journal. We'll have the other news of this Wednesday at the end of the program tonight.% ? FOCUS - THE IMPEACHMENT HEARINGS

JIM LEHRER: Republicans issued the draft of four articles of impeachment against President Clinton late today. They were released even before President Clinton's lawyers had concluded their defense. Two of the articles charged the president with perjury, one related to his grand jury testimony, the other to his testimony in the Paula Jones civil lawsuit. Two more accuse him of obstruction of justice and abuse of power. The president's lawyers finished their legal rebuttal. White House counsel Charles Ruff told the committee President Clinton's conduct was morally reprehensible but did not warrant removing him from office. Earlier in the day a final panel of legal witnesses challenged the charges against the president. Kwame Holman reports.

KWAME HOLMAN: The committee began its work early today. Chairman Henry Hyde convened the second day of President Clinton's impeachment defense at 12 minutes after 8. Hyde had given the president's legal team two fifteen-hour days to present its defense, but by working through lunch and keeping their questions to five minutes, members of the committee got through three panels of witnesses yesterday in 11 hours.

REP. HENRY HYDE: The truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.

PANEL: [simultaneously] I do.

REP. HENRY HYDE: Thank you.

KWAME HOLMAN: Today's first panel asked to testify by the White House was composed of five former federal prosecutors. Thomas Sullivan, who was a United States attorney from Chicago, spoke for all of them when he said, given the evidence in the president's case, reasonable prosecutors would not bring perjury or obstruction of justice charges against him.

THOMAS SULLIVAN, Former U.S. Attorney, Illinois: Responsible prosecutors do not submit cases to a grand jury for indictment based upon probable cause. They do not run cases up the flag pole to see how the jury will react. They do not use indictments for deterrence or as a punishment. Responsible prosecutors attempt to determine whether the proof is sufficient to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Some years ago, during the Bush administration, I was asked by an independent counsel to ask as a special assistant to bring an indictment against and try a former member of President Reagan's Cabinet. Having looked at the evidence, I declined to do so because I concluded that, when all the evidence was considered, the case for conviction was doubtful, and that there were innocent and reasonable explanations for the allegedly wrongful conduct. Having reviewed the evidence here, I have reached the same conclusion. It is my opinion that the case set out in the Starr report would not be prosecuted as a criminal case by a responsible federal prosecutor.

KWAME HOLMAN: Most notable among the five former federal prosecutors on the panel was William Weld, the former Republican governor of Massachusetts.

FORMER GOV. WILLIAM WELD, [R] Massachusetts: There's usually something else involved in a federal perjury prosecution. There's a pass-through aspect here; you're really going to something else. I once prosecuted a guy who stated that he was in Florida on November 28th and 29th, 1981. You may say that's kind of, you know, stooping to pick up pins, why would you prosecute him for that. Well, that was the day the city of Lynn, Massachusetts, burned down, and this guy was an arsonist and three people made him in the Port Hole Pub in Lynn, Massachusetts, that day, so -- and we found his fingerprints on a ticket to Florida the next day after the fire. So we thought it would be good idea to bring a perjury prosecution there to rattle the cage a little bit, and we did. And often we brought them where we were trying to penetrate a wall of silence, as in cases of public corruption or narcotics, when you're trying to break through this omerta, everyone's got to dummy-up phenomenon. But there is something else that you're trying to get at there.

KWAME HOLMAN: A year ago, Weld was President Clinton's choice to become ambassador to Mexico, but his confirmation was blocked by Republican conservative Senator Jesse Helms. The White House might have hoped Weld's appearance today on behalf of the president would help persuade enough moderate Republicans in the House to vote against impeachment the issues comes to the House floor.

FORMER GOV. WILLIAM WELD: I am pretty well convinced that adultery, fornication or even a false denial -- false, I'm assuming perjury here -- false denial of adultery or fornication -- they do not constitute high crimes and misdemeanors within the meaning of the impeachment clause of the U.S. Constitution. They're not offenses against the system of government. They don't imperil the structure of our government. The remedy of impeachment is to remove the officeholder, get the worm out of the apple. It's a prophylactic -- prophylactic remedy. It is not punitive. If any of you are thinking we've got to vote yes on impeachment to tarnish the president, he's already tarnished. And that's really not the purpose of the impeachment mechanism.

KWAME HOLMAN: Weld concluded by recommending the Congress might want to censure the president, impose on him a substantial fine, and leave him vulnerable to criminal prosecution once he leaves office. John Conyers, the committee's ranking Democrat, applauded the testimony of all five witnesses.

REP. JOHN CONYERS, [D] Michigan: What you've done here is of single important from my point of view. This should be studied carefully by everybody that makes public utterances about the questions of perjury and obstruction and how and when materiality figures into the prosecutorial role.

KWAME HOLMAN: However, most Republicans on the committee - beginning with Bill McCollum of Florida, did not accept the panel's testimony without a challenge.

REP. BILL McCOLLUM, [R] Florida: You have a situation in which the President of the United States says that he did not commit to have sexual relations with Monica Lewinsky under the definition as given in the court in the Jones case. That court included in its definition explicitly the touching of breast or genitalia. Now the president said, "I didn't do that." He repeated it very carefully in the grand jury testimony. Monica Lewinsky said on nine occasions in her sworn testimony before the grand jury the president touched her breast and on four occasions they had genital contact and that all of this was to arouse. Now, the issue of corroboration, there are ten corroborative witnesses. Interestingly enough, strangely enough, Monica Lewinsky talked contemporaneously with family members, friends, and relatives about these matters in great detail, and we have ten of those whose testimony is before us and in sworn testimony. Seven of the ten corroborate the explicit detail with regard to this touching under the definition of sexual relations that Monica Lewinsky describes. Now, it seems to me that that kind of corroboration is precisely the kind of corroboration that would, in fact, engender prosecution, would give confidence to a prosecutor to take perjury cases forward, and would, indeed, give a high probability of conviction if this were taken before a court in any case - any court in this land. The jury would be hard pressed not to convict under those circumstances.RICHARD DAVIS, Watergate Task Force: I think that the reasons why that prosecution would not win is, one, as I said in my statement, that both witnesses, including Ms. Lewinsky, had an incentive to lie, and she had an incentive to lie not only to the grand jury on this issue but to her confidantes, because, otherwise, she would be acknowledging an unreciprocated sexual relationship. But, just as important, if you're talking about one witness that Mr. Starr or any prosecutor is going to put forward, Mr. Starr and his prosecutors, himself, are going to have to argue within this case that Ms. Lewinsky's testimony in other issues is not accurate. They're going to have to argue that. They're going to be in a position where they're going to have to say she's telling the truth as to this, not telling the truth as to other things.

REP. ELTON GALLEGLY, [R] California: When the president was asked, "At any time were you and Monica Lewinsky alone in the Oval Office," he answered, "I don't recall." The evidence indicates that he was, in fact, alone with Ms. Lewinsky on many occasions, including the time that they exchanged gifts, less than 20 days before the deposition. Mr. Sullivan, for this not to be perjury, the president must have genuinely forgot his numerous encounters with Ms. Lewinsky, is that correct, for it not to be perjury?

THOMAS SULLIVAN: Yes. The evidence in a perjury case requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant not only made a false statement but knew it was false at the time it was made, that's correct.

REP. ELTON GALLEGLY: And if - and the test would be that he genuinely forgot in order for that not to be perjury, is that correct?

THOMAS SULLIVAN: That's my understanding.

REP. STEVE CHABOT, [R] Ohio: Just yesterday, we were presented with the president's 184-page defense report and were told that the word "alone" is a vague term, unless a particular geographic space is identified. Do you find that sort of legal hairsplitting defense helpful? Don't you think that we ought to at least be able to agree that "alone" means you're by yourself, not with anybody?

RICHARD DAVIS: Well, I think "alone," in essence means that you're by yourself, but I think that while you don't forget that you had sex with somebody, I think you have to go back and look at the confusing nature of the answers. Look, basically what was going on - there's no question the president was trying his best to avoid and was playing word games in his deposition. He shouldn't have been doing it, and he was doing it. The issue is what is the legal consequences now - and that's what we're all struggling with.

REP. BOB BARR, [R] Georgia: I know Mr. Craig is here, and I don't know whether he is delighted or dismayed by the panel today, because after promising us yesterday that we would not be hearing technicalities and legalities, that's all we hear today, and that's fine. We have a panel of very distinguished criminal attorneys here, and that is the essence of criminal law. We have lawyers here that would apparently agonize greatly over a definition of sexual relations that is very, very broad, uses terms that are deliberately broad to encompass a whole range of activities, using the term "any person." Now, to Mr. Sullivan, any person may not mean any person, but I think for the average person of common sense it would. So we still have this legal technical parsing over definitions and words that really leaves us precisely where we were before Mr. Craig made a promise yesterday that we would have no more technicalities and legalities to hang our hats on. And, Mr. Craig, shame on you for putting together a panel here of technicalities and legalities, when you promised us yesterday there would be no more of that.

REP. HENRY HYDE: Mr. Delahunt.

REP. WILLIAM DELAHUNT, [D] Massachusetts: Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. You know, I want to speak to the issues of technicalities and legalities and what have you, because I think it's important when we speak about the rule of law, oftentimes we're talking about technicalities and questionable legalities because it's imbedded in our Constitution that there are certain standards and requirements. Is that a fair statement, Mr. Sullivan?

THOMAS SULLIVAN: Yes. It is.

REP. WILLIAM DELAHUNT: This is not about technicalities.

THOMAS SULLIVAN: In response to what Mr. Barr said and in somewhat -

REP. WILLIAM DELAHUNT: Mr. Sullivan, I'm just going to speak -

THOMAS SULLIVAN: Right.

REP. WILLIAM DELAHUNT: -- to you, because I want to have a little -

THOMAS SULLIVAN: It is interesting to me, because in my experience persons who make such statements when they become the subject or the object of an investigation -

REP. WILLIAM DELAHUNT: Correct.

THOMAS SULLIVAN: -- are the first ones to get the mantle of the Constitution to protect them.

REP. WILLIAM DELAHUNT: Right. And start yelling about technicalities and legalities.

THOMAS SULLIVAN: Insisting their rights. And you don't hear that kind of a speech from them anymore when they hire me to defend them.

REP. WILLIAM DELAHUNT: Right.

THOMAS SULLIVAN: I can guarantee you that.

JIM LEHRER: And this afternoon the White House counsel, Charles Ruff, wrapped up the presentation of the President's defense. Again, Kwame Holman.

KWAME HOLMAN: Charles Ruff has been lead White House counsel since January 1997. He was a Watergate prosecutor and served as United States attorney for the District of Columbia. Ruff has used a wheelchair since contracting a paralyzing disease while working in Africa in the 1960's. Flanked by the president's private attorney, David Kendall, and White House special counsel, Gregory Craig, Ruff delivered a one-hour statement defending the president against impeachment.

CHARLES RUFF, White House Counsel: I want to begin by coming to grips directly with the issue that I think has been the principal focus of the committee's attention and concern -- the president's grand jury testimony. We take this as our starting point to address the concerns oft stated by Congressman Graham and others whether if the president were proved to have committed perjury before the grand jury, such conduct would, without more, merit impeachment. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, we firmly believe first that the president testified truthfully before the grand jury but second, that no matter what judgment you reach about that testimony, there could be no basis for impeachment on any reasonable reading of the constitutional standards. The Office of Independent Counsel would have the committee believe that in three respects the president committed perjury in his testimony before the grand jury: First, by stating that his relationship with Ms. Lewinsky began in February 1996, rather than November 1995; second, by stating that he believed that a particular form of intimate activity was not covered by the definition of sexual relations approved by Judge Wright in the Jones Case; and third, by stating that he did not engage in specific types of sexual conduct theoretically in order to conform his testimony to a civil deposition. Now, as to the first of these, you must begin your consideration with the proposition that the president acknowledged to the grand jury that he did have a wrongful intimate relationship with Ms. Lewinsky. What then might have led him to change by three months the date on which that relationship began? Well, the referral surmises, it must have been because, although the president was prepared to make the most devastating admission of misconduct any husband and father could imagine, he still wanted to have the grand jury believe that when their relationship began, Ms. Lewinsky was a 22-year-old employee, rather than a 22-year-old intern. Well, putting aside for the moment the fact that under no circumstances would any reasonable prosecutor or any judge or jury find such a discrepancy material, there is absolutely no proof of any such purpose on the president's part. Not one witness, including Ms. Lewinsky, even suggested such a thing. The only proof the referral offers is a mischaracterization of the record. The contention that the president's concern about Ms. Lewinsky - about Ms. Lewinsky's badge - reflected concern about her status, that is as an intern, rather than as was clearly the case, her ability to move freely in the West Wing of the White House. Other than this misleading representation, we are left only with the referral's bare speculation, clearly contrived simply in order to find some fine point in the president's testimony that it could trumpet as false. As to the second of the three perjury allegations, the independent counsel would have the committee find that the president testified falsely because the independent counsel has concluded that the president's statement of his own belief in the meaning of the definition of sexual relations in the Jones case is not credible. At least, here, the independent counsel is candid enough to acknowledge that he has no evidentiary basis for that conclusion. The referral simply states it to be the case and moves on. I suggest that those of you who have been prosecutors know as a matter of practical experience and those of you who have not been prosecutors or even lawyers know as a matter of common sense that no one could or would ever be charged with perjury because the prosecutor did not find credible a witness's statement of his personal belief, much less his personal belief about the meaning of a definition used in a civil deposition. And so we come to the third. The referral alleges that the president lied when he admitted having one form of sexual contact with Ms. Lewinsky but denied having certain other forms of contact, as the independent counsel would have it, in order to make his grand jury testimony consistent with the definition under which he testified in the Jones deposition. We will not drag the committee into the salacious muck that fills the referral. Instead, let each member assume that Ms. Lewinsky's version of the events is correct and then ask, "Am I prepared to impeach the president because - after having admitted having engaged in egregiously wrongful conduct - he falsely described the particulars of that conduct?". Let each member even assume that the president testified as he did because he did not want to admit that in a civil deposition, confronted with a narrowly, indeed, oddly framed definition, he had succeeded in misleading opposing counsel, and then ask yourself, "Am I prepared to impeach the president for that?". The answer must be "No." When one scrapes away all the rhetoric, what one finds is this: The referral alleges that the president lied to a grand jury about the details of sexual conduct - not to conceal his wrongful relationship with a 22-year-old employee - but to avoid admitting in a civil deposition he'd misled plaintiff's counsel about an embarrassing matter that the court openly found immaterial. The president has said that he made no effort to be helpful; that he did not want to reveal his relationship, understandably. His answers were frequently evasive and incomplete, as my colleague, Mr. Craig, said yesterday, even maddening. They were misleading, but they were not perjurious. And a fortiori, they cannot be the basis for impeachment.

KWAME HOLMAN: As has been the practice during the hearings, the witness then took questions from committee members.

REP. CHARLES CANADY, [R] Florida: Mr. Ruff, I wanted to thank you for your presentation here today. The president chose well when he chose you as his White House counsel. But let me say that I am still frustrated by what I consider to be legal arguments that don't really meet the test of common sense and human experience. When the president testified in his deposition that he had no specific recollection of ever being alone with Ms. Lewinsky, that that was truthful, I just don't think meets the test of common sense and experience. I understand that's your contention, but I have to respectfully submit that using that as an example, that it just does not stand up to analysis.

REP. JERROLD NADLER, [D] New York: Why not just forget about these legalisms and the hairsplitting and just admit to perjury or to lying under oath, if that is necessary to make some editorial writers less hostile, or to get a few more votes against impeachment? Why not just say it, even if it's really perjury or lying under oath? Why is enforcing a precise legal definition of perjury important for all of our liberties?

CHARLES RUFF: When there is a charge that a human being committed perjury, that is, knowingly lied, it can be distinguished from testimony that may be actually truthful, evasive, misleading, but, nonetheless, the product of human frailty. We don't put people in jail for that, and we certainly don't impeach them, though I think the legalisms that we are legitimately accused of using - we use them - no question about it - because that's what we believe best reflects the seriousness and the gravity of the offense that the independent counsel has charged the president with committing.

REP. ROBERT GOODLATTE, [R] Virginia: You have also made the contention that this is simply about lying to cover up a personal embarrassment. But isn't it true, Mr. Ruff, that moments after the president completed that testimony before the grand jury, he went before the American people and admitted an embarrassment, which was what he acknowledges his side of what took place there? And isn't it really the reason why he committed what I think is that perjurious statement not to avoid embarrassment, because he'd already embarrassed and disgraced himself, but for the purpose of covering up a previous lie in the testimony before the civil - deposition in the civil case, because of the fact that if he acknowledged what Ms. Lewinsky says took place, he would be acknowledging that what he said earlier were falsehoods and that he knew they were falsehoods in that case?

CHARLES RUFF: I believe, I am convinced, and I think the weight of scholarly evidence would lead to the conclusion that even if you reach that conclusion, that is your conclusion, not mine, about whether the president lied or not in that deposition - in that grand jury testimony, it still doesn't warrant removing him from office. Thank you.

SPOKESPERSON: The gentle woman from California, Ms. Waters.

REP. MAXINE WATERS, [D] California: Mr. Ruff, I too must join my colleagues in complimenting you on the job that you have done here this afternoon. I think you did a fantastic job of further taking apart really the allegations that we have been presented with. I don't know what else can be done with these issues. You've made it clear what the legal definitions of perjury are. We've discussed in detail obstruction of justice and bribery. The other side of the aisle - my colleagues cannot overcome the factual information that's been presented to us. As a matter of fact, the more we get into these allegations, the flimsier they are. I mean, in essence, they're rather lightweight.

KWAME HOLMAN: White House Counsel Charles Ruff completed his testimony early this evening, and the committee adjourned for the day. Tomorrow, the Republican and Democratic committee counsels will make their closing arguments. The Judiciary Committee then will begin debate on the articles of impeachment of the president.

JIM LEHRER: Some reaction now to the President's impeachment defense and to Margaret Warner.

MARGARET WARNER: And joining us for that are two members of Congress not on the Judiciary Committee. They are among a group of twenty to thirty Republican moderates the White House has been hoping to persuade to vote against impeachment. Rep. Marge Roukema of New Jersey has said previously she was inclined to support impeachment while Rep. Christopher Shays of Connecticut has said he is opposed. Welcome both of you. How good a job do you think, Congresswoman, that the president's team did today in presenting the president's case?

REP. MARGE ROUKEMA, [R] New Jersey: Oh, I think, without question, in my mind they did a very poor job, not only today. You heard the assertions of legalistic parsing and hairsplitting, I agree with that. The legalisms were atrocious, and I thought they would do a far better job, particularly since we've had now an accumulation of Pete Kendall, the lawyer for the president originally not really addressing any of the substantive issues when he went up against Judge Starr, then the partisan tirades of the committee that have - committee Democrats that have never addressed the substance of the issues, and then the 81 non-answers to the questions, which were alluded to today. I think cumulative effect of that is demonstrating that they're really trying to treat it like a political issue, rather than the constitutional legal issues that I believe are at the heart of the subject, that the are the principles that we have to deal with here, regretfully so. I don't take any pleasure in saying this, but I am really appalled and disappointed.

MARGARET WARNER: Congressman, I want to get your reaction. I want to apologize to our viewers for the background noise of where you all are sitting. But, Congressman, do you think that the president's team - either the panel this morning, the panels yesterday, or Mr. Ruff today - succeeded in changing any minds or moving any minds, at least among your colleagues?

REP. CHRISTOPHER SHAYS, [R] Connecticut: Well, marginally. I mean, they didn't make a lot of mistakes, but they weren't very persuasive either. I mean, this president needs to do something a bit out of character for him. He simply needs to tell the truth. He needs to tell the truth, and that will go a long way to helping him at least deal with impeachment.

MARGARET WARNER: And by saying tell the truth, what do you mean? What more would you have liked to have heard than you heard today?

REP. CHRISTOPHER SHAYS: Really what I'm saying is, it's not the lawyers that are going to help, and it's what Bill Clinton says himself. The problem is that lawyers have a way of keeping you out of jail but destroying your credibility in the process, and they have a lot of help obviously from the president. And so the bottom line for me is they're into legalese and right now they just need to acknowledge the fact the president lied, he did not tell the truth, he did not tell the truth in a number of instances, he broke the law, they need to acknowledge that he broke the law, but they then need to point out, as I think is the case, that the impeachable offenses were not proven and the proven offense were not impeachable. That's their best argument, and I think it's a valid one.

MARGARET WARNER: Congresswoman, take the first part of that, that the impeachable offenses aren't provable - that was one of the things that Mr. Ruff - he tried to present an alternative view of the facts - did he make any headway, or did you see anything in his interpretation of the facts?

REP. MARGE ROUKEMA: Not with me, not in my opinion, and I listened rather carefully to a number of the questions that were presented by the Republicans, and there were no answers there. Look, the question that the Congress has to face when the Judiciary Committee reports its articles of impeachment, as we learned just minutes before I went on the program, there are going to be four proposals for articles of impeachment, and the thing that the House of Representatives has to focus on is whether or not there is substantial and credible evidence that perjury and/or obstruction of justice and the other - the other third issue - will be proven. Now, we don't have to prove that. We're in a way a grand jury. But if there's substantial and credible evidence that crimes were committed, perjury and obstruction of justice, then we have to send it over to the Senate. That's where the trial will be conducted. But in this case I think it's clear that there has not been any declarative evidence based on these two days of hearings that perjury was not committed.

MARGARET WARNER: Congressman, yes, comment on that issue about whether - what the House's role is here. Is it - as the Congresswoman says - simply to decide whether there's enough evidence to send it to trial?

REP. CHRISTOPHER SHAYS: I don't believe that when you deal with impeachment that you just have probable cause. I think you have to - at least I feel I have to be convinced that the president should be removed from office - that he committed high crimes. I'm not comfortable just sending it to the Senate, feeling there's probable cause. And this is talking about a - really almost an awesome shutdown of government, a trial in the Senate. I'm not going to be casual about that aspect of it. I have to be convinced he committed high crimes. And anything less than that I think isn't acceptable.

MARGARET WARNER: And Congresswoman -

REP. MARGE ROUKEMA: May I comment on that. And this is a matter of judgment and between us, it's extraordinary that we two moderates, who so frequently agree, are here at exact opposite ends from each other. I do not interpret our constitutional responsibility in the same way that Chris Shays does, and I know it's a matter of conscience for Chris, and it's a matter of conscience for me as well. But I don't interpret my constitutional responsibility in that way. I believe I have to judge it on the legal, substantive issues that are involved here, and then the judgment and the trial goes on in the Senate. But I do not believe that we unnecessarily have to drag this out for months not doing the nation's business. I think we absolutely have an obligation to do both.

MARGARET WARNER: Congressman, address now the other half of your statement that the provable facts aren't impeachable. Are you essentially accepting the White House's view that to be impeachable, the actions have to subvert our system of government?

REP. CHRISTOPHER SHAYS: Well, I believe that the president committed crimes.I believe he committed even serious crimes. I don't believe he committed high crimes, and that's where I really had to make my determination on whether the president should be impeached or not. I thought high crimes were the misuse of the FBI and the IRS and the White House Travel Office. And Mr. Starr cleared him of that. I thought it was a misuse and high crimes were committed in terms of 900 FBI files in the possession of the White House, mostly Republicans. And Mr. Starr cleared him of that. He cleared him of Whitewater. And so I'm left with the fact that the lesser crimes are really what's before Congress right now. I think that's one reason why the Judiciary Committee started to reach out to see if they could find more, and they're really stuck with the Starr Report. It's just not reaching the level of high crimes.

MARGARET WARNER: And Congresswoman, what do you think this standard for high crimes -

REP. MARGE ROUKEMA: High crimes or misdemeanors, and I do believe that perjury and/or obstruction of justice qualify as impeachable offenses. I do not believe that anyone is above the law, and I do think there's adequate evidence that perjury before a grand jury, which is what we're talking about, is subject to trial.

MARGARET WARNER: Congressman, before we go, I'd like to ask you also about a "Dear Colleague" letter you sent out this afternoon with Tom Delay, the Republican whip who supports impeachment, both of you arguing against censure. Why are you against censure and why did you send out that letter today?

REP. CHRISTOPHER SHAYS: Well, we sent it out yesterday.

MARGARET WARNER: Oh, I'm sorry. I just got it today.

REP. CHRISTOPHER SHAYS: I'm sorry. Maybe it was sent out today. We wrote it yesterday. But I believe very strongly as well that we have a responsibility to do - make one major decision, should the President of the United States be impeached and removed from office? And that's the decision before us. And I don't think we should cloud it up with other choices. That's maybe something people want to deal with in the future, but, in my judgment, the issue before us is that simple question. And frankly, I get a little concerned about getting into the situation where we decide to have censure reprimand of a president. I think that could happen quite often. We could have the censure of the week or the censure of the month if we're not careful. So I think it's up or down on that issue.

MARGARET WARNER: Are you saying - what are you saying about whether you'd like to see it come even to the floor as an alternative?

REP. CHRISTOPHER SHAYS: I don't think it should come to the floor as an alternative. I think next week if the House votes out articles of impeachment, that's what we should decide. And frankly, the Senate is probably the one that is more responsible for the issue of punishment. The issue of impeachment is not an issue of punishment. It's an issue of whether we think the president should be removed from office. And I take very strongly and dearly and almost sacredly the fact that when the American people elect a president, they have elected that man or woman to be the president. I need high crimes to overturn that election of the American people.

MARGARET WARNER: Congresswoman, briefly, do think censure should be presented as an alternative?

REP. MARGE ROUKEMA: No. I totally agree with Chris Shays here. I do not believe so. In the first place, some people are trying to use it as a dodge to avoid the essential constitutional issue that we have before us, but in the second case, it is - I am convinced - the responsibility of the Senate if as a part of that trial, if they should determine that censure should be part of it. In addition, in addition, under our system of government, I think there are large questions as to the constitutionality of the House of Representatives under a separation of power turning around and censuring a president. And I think, as Chris has said, that could open a door for an awful lot of abuses.

REP. CHRISTOPHER SHAYS: I -

MARGARET WARNER: We do have to go - briefly.

REP. CHRISTOPHER SHAYS: Bottom line is I think censure is being used as an accommodation for the members who don't want to make the tough choice.

MARGARET WARNER: Okay. Great. Congresswoman Roukema and Congressman Shays, thank you both very much.

JIM LEHRER: Analysis and commentary about all of this now from Stuart Taylor, columnist for the National Journal and Newsweek Magazine, and Tom Oliphant, columnist for the Boston Globe.

JIM LEHRER: Tom, what do you make of - here are two of the target members of Congress, two members of the House, two moderate Republicans, twenty to thirty of them, everybody says - their colleagues and folks like that are going to make the decision - what do you make of what they just told Margaret?

TOM OLIPHANT: Well, they underlined the mountain that President Clinton has to climb. The exemplify it. In the first case, Congresswoman Roukema, of course, has been for getting rid of Clinton for some months now - previously via resignation. And Congressman Shays is also in an interesting position. He has had a lot of backlash from contributors. And he has teamed up with the majority whip, Tom Delay, at least to talk down the issue of censure, though he remains opposed to impeachment. I think in Congressman Roukema you have a wonderful example of how easy it is for a member of the House to look at something that was given to the House by an independent counsel and sort of react to it, say, I believe this, I don't believe that, you have no responsibility for an investigation that the House conducted, and so both within the Judiciary Committee and on the House floor, there's a kind of free market atmosphere here where you don't really have to take responsibility for an investigation that you never actually conducted.

JIM LEHRER: And just move it over to the Senate, as you said.

TOM OLIPHANT: Exactly.

STUART TAYLOR: I'm struck with how they said they were unimpressed with the president's defense today. And if they're representative, that's a big problem for the president. I'm not sure they are, but I was enormously impressed by the defense today, and I've been arguing for impeachment for a while. The reconciliation, I think, is people like them are looking for the president, in their view, to start telling the truth, stop quibbling, stop lying. They think he lied to the grand jury, among other things, about what he did with Monica Lewinsky to cover up earlier lies, and they think he just won't admit it, and that seems to be a real sticking point. My - I thought the president's laws - given that they're stuck with that, and they say they believe him and that he's not changing his position, at least not yet, did a very effective job in hitting the weak points in the Starr case, making the argument that this isn't impeachable and making as many concessions as their client's position wanted to make. No, he won't pardon himself. No, he won't accept a pardon. Yes, he could be subject to the law after he leaves office. They're trying to give as much as they can, but for these two congress people at least they're not giving enough.

JIM LEHRER: Tom, what did you think of the rough presentation and the overall presentation of the last two days?

TOM OLIPHANT: The key elements and some of this stretched back to yesterday, but the most important thing that was presented before the committee, whose decision is already preordained, is that the record, the material that was sent to the committee from Ken Starr, does not support necessarily the conclusions that have been drawn for it, that Starr took a bunch of this grand jury testimony and came up with 11 counts for impeachment. And David Schippers, the House committee counsel, took away two of those and added six of his own and came up with fifteen all supposedly supported by this mass of material, and now the committee - after another month of sifting around with this same stuff - has come up with two more, and you've got seventeen separate charges in here. And it's kind of like the Mike Espy case in a constitutional setting - the hope being that one or two of these are going to stick. But Ruff's presentation showed, I think at least in theory, how you can go back into that body of evidence and find a narrative that goes in the opposite direction of what Starr presented, and it was the kind of case that shores up the Democratic vote here, so that if the president is to be impeached on an article or two that does stick, you set up a situation where the Democratic base could not be more secure for a Senate trial, which will last however long it lasts and, therefore, lead to no resolution of this case. And the members of the House then presumably will have to answer the question: Why did you put the country through this?

JIM LEHRER: Yes. The same question that you mentioned, the Espy, that Donald Smaltz is now having to answer the independent counsel - but let's go to the articles of impeachment. We now have a draft. You said there's 17 charges; they're included in four articles: perjury before the grand jury; perjury in the Jones case, obstruction of justice; and abuse of power. What do you think about the perjury charge before the grand jury?

STUART TAYLOR: Its strength is that grand jury perjury is generally regarded as very serious, and that almost everybody who has studied it closely has a hard time believing the president told the truth. The weakness is, as Mr. Ruff said, the heart of it comes down to at one level what did the president touch and when did the president touch it, what went on between him and Monica Lewinsky exactly, details of sex acts, and that wasn't the way Mr. Ruff put it, and he said if he you - you know, you can't impeach a man over that stuff, to which the response, I suppose, on the Republican side is, it's part of the broader cover-up of trying to admit that he'd lied in the first place.

JIM LEHRER: But that is the most serious charge, you agree?

TOM OLIPHANT: Oh, by a country mile. But, again, though, to continue with Mr. Ruff's presentation and my analogy with Mike Espy's case, the witnesses, the names that are cited as the evidence in support of the charges about grand jury perjury, those witnesses would actually testify to the opposite. They would be witnesses for the defense if they were a place. It's one reason you didn't see any witnesses in this inquiry. You had this odd situation where the witnesses - people like Bob Bennett or Monica Lewinsky or if you - if you connect the dots in to perjury in the Jones case and obstruction of justice, Betty Currie, et cetera, their testimony in the grand jury is something that Ken Starr had to divide up and parcel out because he had to say, well, I don't believe this, I believe this, and Ruff showed how difficult that can be in a trial setting.

JIM LEHRER: Now, perjury in the Jones case, that's article two. Don't they have to almost vote perjury in the Jones case before you can have perjury before the grand jury, because isn't that what he's accused of doing, is lying, no?

TOM OLIPHANT: You are going to get votes against perjury in the Jones case on the constitutional ground that it doesn't rise to the level of impeachable offenses.

JIM LEHRER: Because it's a simple case of materiality -

TOM OLIPHANT: So you could get the irony of being convicted or charged on a count of perjury before the grand jury about the civil case where you're not - where the article doesn't pass.

STUART TAYLOR: As a logical, antecedent matter, you're right. If he didn't perjure himself in the Jones case, he didn't perjure himself in the grand jury either, probably, so - but, as you say, there are people - Lindsey Graham of South Carolina - who say, well, I'm not sure we'd impeach a president, we should impeach a president over perjury in a civil case, especially about this sort of stuff, but grand jury perjury is more serious. I think one - one thing that strikes me about these articles is that basically it's the entire - it's all the things Starr said were impeachable somewhat repackaged, and this packaging, I suppose, four articles, it's one way of trying to give something to everybody. The weakness of that - if I may use an old prosecutor's analogy - prosecutors like to say - this case, don't look at this case as a bunch of little threads; look at it as strands in a rope, and the rope is as strong as all of them, cutting one of them doesn't take it away. There isn't any one of these articles that kind of gives you the whole picture. So you can attack perjury before the grand jury on the grounds of, oh, who cares what they did, and I don't believe it. You can attack perjury in the deposition on the grounds of that's not impeachable, and maybe everything falls, but apparently, the Republican strategists, who know better than I how to get votes, I think this is the way to go.

JIM LEHRER: What do you think about the obstruction of justice and abuse of power?

TOM OLIPHANT: To continue on Stuart's point, that raises the stakes for that article. But, again, what's unusual about it, also to continue to Stuart's point, is that there are a lot of disparate elements to the seven charges within that article. It's not a seamless web or the strands of a rope.

JIM LEHRER: You're talking about obstruction of justice.

TOM OLIPHANT: That's right. It's a pick one or two here.

JIM LEHRER: Encouraged Monica Lewinsky to submit a false statement, President Clinton encouraged Monica Lewinsky to give false testimony to the court.

TOM OLIPHANT: Right. But politically it is very important because for the grand jury perjury article to pass on the floor it would help greatly if the perjury were for some larger criminal purpose. I think a lot of members will be uncomfortable voting only on a perjury count where you don't have any underlying crime.

JIM LEHRER: But then you've got article four, which sounds much more majestic. The president made false and misleading public statements for the purpose of deceiving the people of the United States.

STUART TAYLOR: Well, you know, that echoes one of the elements in article one against Richard Nixon, I think, lying to the American people, but it wasn't all by itself; it was surrounded by a whole lot of more impressive acts of abuse of power, and if you look down the list of acts of abuse of power here, no one of them kind of knocks your socks off. It's not like saying the CIA didn't tell the FBI not to investigate something. I think the argument for having something like this is to counter the sort of none of this is impeachable because it's all just personal. Well, it's not quite all just personal. As abuse of power goes, this is not a Watergate-scale case.

JIM LEHRER: All right. Let's preview now what happens next. Tomorrow, David Schippers, who's the majority counsel, the Republican counsel, will summarize the case for these articles, right, and then Mr. Abbe Lowell, who is the minority counsel, will put on a defense, and then we have a vote probably on Friday, is that right?

TOM OLIPHANT: They will begin statements in - each member will make 10-minute statements at the conclusion of the - the lawyers and then - and that'll go into Saturday.

JIM LEHRER: The vote - then the vote coming on Saturday - any question that anything has changed, but there's still going to be 21 to 16. Did you - either one of you heard anything that changes that?

TOM OLIPHANT: They might knock the fourth article out in committee. That's the one that could go in committee. There are two members already who have indicated some opposition to the abuse of power.

JIM LEHRER: Two Republican members.

TOM OLIPHANT: That's correct.

JIM LEHRER: Right.

TOM OLIPHANT: And you only need one more but the others I think 21/16 all the way.

STUART TAYLOR: You think each one of them? I'm not sure whether they'll get 21 on deposition perjury, for example, but -

JIM LEHRER: Then it goes -

STUART TAYLOR: But they'll get a majority.

JIM LEHRER: They'll get a majority for one or two at least, and then it goes to the floor of the House next week, and they have to wait 48 hours before they can take it up so all the members can come and the show goes on. Thank you both very much.% ? NEWS SUMMARY

JIM LEHRER: In other news today the U.S. trade deficit hit another record high. The Commerce Department reported the gap hit $61.3 billion from July through September, an 8 percent increase. It was the fourth record in a row. Analysts saw it as more evidence Asian financial turmoil is harming American exports. Separately today, the Federal Reserve said many regions of the U.S. reported an economic slowdown last month. Again, decreased demand for exports was blamed. The British government ruled today that Spain may seek the extradition of former Chile President Augusto Pinochet. Britain's home secretary, similar to the U.S. attorney general, made the decision about Pinochet, who now holds the title of "Senator for Life." We have more from Mark Austin of Independent Television News.

MARK AUSTIN, Independent Television News: Throughout the day Chilean supporters of General Pinochet had gathered in London, convinced that the former leader they still revere would soon be free to return home. But this afternoon the home secretary announced the decision that means Pinochet could soon face charges of genocide and torture.

SPOKESPERSON: I've considered all the representations made to me. And in the light of the representations and of my legal obligations, I've decided to issue an authority to proceed, irrespective of the extradition for Senator Pinochet.

MARK AUSTIN: General Pinochet was arrested in October at this London clinic, where he was recovering from back surgery. A Spanish judge wants the aging dictator questioned over the deaths of more than 4,000 political opponents, who were either killed or disappeared while Pinochet's military Junta ruled Chile. The high court soon overturned his arrest, but two weeks ago, five law lords ruled by three to two that he had no immunity to prosecution. Today, Jack Straw backed up the law lords, and that means General Pinochet will remain in the guarded Surrey Mansion rented by the Chilean government and other supporters while the legal process continues.

JIM LEHRER: Also overseas today Iraq blocked a surprise inspection by UN weapons personnel. They attempted to inspected Saddam Hussein ruling party headquarters. Their Iraqi escort declared the site sensitive and denied access. Later, the oil minister said the escort made an error, but it was not known if the monitors would be allowed to return. Chief Weapons Inspector Richard Butler called the situation "very serious." The United States said it was withholding judgment. Japanese researchers reported they cloned eight calves from the cells of an adult cow. The experiment was reported in the Journal Science today. The scientists said the calves were cloned using a technique similar to the one that produced the sheep known as Dollie. Four of the eight calves died shortly after birth due to environmental factors. And not long ago the holiday season officially began here in Washington. The President and the First Lady joined singers, entertainers, the Air Force band, and Santa Claus in opening the Christmas Pageant of Peace. It will be on display through New Year's on the ellipse between the White House and the Washington Monument. Then President Clinton looked on as baseball's home run hitter, Sammy Sosa, and two children pressed the button that lit up the National Christmas Tree. [music in background] And we'll see you online and again here tomorrow evening with full coverage of the continuing impeachment inquiry by the House Judiciary Committee. % ? RECAP

JIM LEHRER: We'll have a one-hour summary of today's session on many public television stations later this evening. Please check your local listings for the exact time. I'm Jim Lehrer. Thank you and good night.