Prosecutors Call for Clinton’s Ouster, Say He ‘Damaged’ Office

WASHINGTON —  House Republicans concluded their three-day impeachment presentation against President Clinton on Saturday, urging the Senate to remove him from office because his actions have “deeply, and perhaps permanently, damaged” the office of the presidency.

Saying that the 13 House prosecutors and all 100 senators “come to this difficult task as flawed human beings,” Rep. Henry J. Hyde (R-Ill.), the lead prosecutor, told the Senate that it must determine whether Clinton “violated the rule of law” and his “convenant of trust with the American people” in trying to conceal his affair with Monica S. Lewinsky.

Hyde, chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, also told senators that they have a commitment to Americans past and future, a duty that requires them to remove Clinton from office if they conclude that he is guilty of perjury or obstruction of justice.

“We must never tolerate one law for the ruler and another for the ruled,” Hyde argued.

“If we do, we break faith with our ancestors from Bunker Hill, Lexington and Concord to Flanders fields, Normandy, Iwo Jima, Panmunjon, Saigon and Desert Storm.”

In a rare Saturday session a year after Clinton denied under oath that he had had “sexual relations” with the former White House intern, House managers also appealed to the chamber’s time-honored respect for history and its own precedents.

Repeatedly, they reminded senators that they have ousted several federal judges for offenses similar to those charged to the president, arguing that they must do no less now.

With the conclusion of the House case against Clinton, the way was cleared for the president’s lawyers to begin their defense when the trial resumes Tuesday. And the trial appeared to be moving toward a vote late this week or early next week on a key issue: whether to hear testimony from witnesses, either live or through depositions.

If a majority of the Senate votes to hear from such key witnesses as Lewinsky, presidential secretary Betty Currie and others, several senators have said that all bets will be off on the remaining course of the trial. The White House could ask to call its own witnesses, for example, and the proceedings likely would continue for some time.

On Saturday, reactions to the first completed phase of the trial were predictable, divided along party lines.

Senate Democrats said that they had heard nothing new in the House case over the last three days and that they now expect a vigorous defense from Clinton’s attorneys.

Republican senators praised the House presentations but said that they too will give the president’s case a full hearing.

White House Special Counsel Gregory Craig dismissed the House presentation, saying that prosecutors “failed to meet the burden” and that theirs remained an “unsubstantiated, circumstantial case that does not meet the constitutional standard to remove the president from office.”

Craig also vowed to mount “a strong, vigorous” defense of the president. But such a point-by-point effort will only increase the likelihood that a majority of senators will want to hear from witnesses to sort out conflicting testimony, several Republicans said Saturday.

“I believe that counsel for the president must present the best defense case of which they are capable,” said Sen. Richard G. Lugar (R-Ind.). “It appears to me that they might wish to call their own witnesses and to cross-examine witnesses who have provided abundant evidence of the president’s perjury and obstruction of justice.”

In addition to joining the rising chorus of GOP voices calling for witnesses, Lugar said that he will oppose any motion to end the trial prematurely.

Growing Debate on Calling Clinton

There also was growing debate among senators, encouraged by House Republicans, over whether to invite the president to testify.

Although Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott (R-Miss.) is well aware of that sentiment, “he doesn’t have an opinion on it,” said his spokesman, John Czwartacki.

Among those who suggested such an invitation was Sen. Orrin G. Hatch (R-Utah). “The president ought to be extended that courtesy, if he so desires,” he said during a break in the trial.

“If he wants to refine or straighten out some of the difficulties that people are having with the characterization of his actions, he ought to be extended the privilege of doing that,” Hatch said.

“Many think it’d be helpful,” said Sen. Tim Hutchinson (R-Ark.), adding that there is “a pretty strong sense” among Republicans that Clinton should testify.

But the White House has consistently maintained that Clinton has no interest in testifying, and senators have made clear they would not try to compel him to appear, saying that the option of testifying is entirely up to the president.

“I doubt that Congress could mandate the president to appear, but Congress could extend an invitation,” said Sen. Bob Graham (D-Fla.).

On the divisive issue of whether to call such witnesses as Lewinsky and Currie, the two political parties remained at odds over the weekend.

Lott sent a letter Friday night to his Democratic counterpart, Minority Leader Tom Daschle of South Dakota, suggesting creation of a bipartisan committee of senators to explore the need for live witnesses.

Such a group “could anticipate and help resolve in advance any complications that may be presented by our hearing the testimony of witnesses,” Lott said.

But Daschle declined, reiterating Democrats’ opposition to witnesses while arguing that it would be premature to take up the matter now. He noted that the Senate only eight days ago had unanimously agreed to delay a decision on witnesses until all opening arguments had concluded.

Hyde Speaks on Rule of Law

The House prosecutors opened their case Thursday with Hyde speaking about the rule of law. He argued that it would be a mockery of the country’s judicial system if Clinton were not held accountable on perjury and obstruction of justice charges.

For about 14 hours over three days, each of the other dozen managers made their own presentations. They focused on narrower issues, such as perjury, obstruction of justice, the facts of the case against Clinton and earlier case law.

Transforming the staid Senate chamber into something more like a modern courtroom, the managers used large graphics and video excerpts of Clinton’s grand jury and deposition testimony to make their case that Clinton had perjured himself and obstructed justice in trying to hide his affair with Lewinsky from Jones’ lawyers, who were pursuing a sexual harassment lawsuit against him, and the grand jury collecting evidence for independent counsel Kenneth W. Starr.

Some read from written statements while others relied only on notes. Rep. George W. Gekas (R-Pa.) spoke without any written material.

In his summation Saturday, Hyde read a letter he had received from a third-grader who suggested that, as punishment for lying about the Lewinsky scandal, Clinton should be required to write a 100-word essay.

The boy, William Preston Summers, had been forced by his father to write the letter to Hyde as punishment for lying and then citing as a defense the president’s actions.

“It is bad to lie because it gets you in more trouble,” the boy wrote.

Also on Saturday, Rep. Stephen E. Buyer (R-Ind.) told senators that they would create an unprecedented “example of lawlessness” by allowing Clinton to “escape conviction by the Senate.”

“We cannot degrade our standards,” Buyer argued.

Rep. Charles T. Canady (R-Fla.) echoed Buyer’s theme that the Senate, having removed judges from office for crimes such as perjury, must not treat the president differently.

“The Senate should not establish a lower standard of integrity for the president than the standard it has already established for federal judges,” he said.

The folksiest presentation was that provided by Rep. Lindsey O. Graham (R-S.C.), whose easygoing, self-effacing manner occasionally elicited smiles and chuckles throughout the otherwise somber Senate chamber.

Graham argued, though, that the evidence against Clinton is “compelling and overwhelming.” Still, he acknowledged with deference that the final verdict is up to the Senate’s 91 men and nine women.

“No matter what you decide, in my opinion, this country will survive. If you acquit the president, we will survive. If you convict him, it will be traumatic, and if you remove him, it will be traumatic. But we will survive.”

House Republican prosecutors were upbeat after Saturday’s session. “I believe we met our burden. These are high crimes,” Buyer said.

Many senators also expressed their views of the trial in progress.

Sen. John H. Chafee (R-R.I.) said in an interview that the House managers had made “excellent presentations” but that he was withholding judgment on the case.

“In all fairness, I want to hear what the other side has to say,” Chafee said.

Sen. Patrick J. Leahy (D-Vt.) added: “We’re at halftime. . . . No senator should make up his or her mind until they have heard all of it.”

Sen. Frank R. Lautenberg (D-N.J.) said: “I don’t think the dynamic has changed from where we began. . . . Those who are unconvinced largely remain unconvinced.”

But Sen. John B. Breaux (D-La.) disagreed. “I think people know what happened, when it happened, where it happened and how it happened,” he said on Cable News Network after the trial had adjourned for the day. “I don’t think we need more witnesses. I think we pretty much know. The question is does this rise to the standard of conviction and removal of the president from office?

“I would like them [White House lawyers] to concentrate on the question of whether these actions rise to the level of conviction under the terms of the Constitution.”

As further evidence of one of the many ways in which this impeachment trial differs from most trials, the senators, who sit as jurors and judges, will continue to speak out. Nineteen of them are scheduled to appear on television talk shows today.

When the trial resumes Tuesday, several other events will be competing for congressional and public attention--most notably Clinton’s sixth State of the Union address Tuesday night. Clinton spent much of Saturday refining and rehearsing the speech, which some members of Congress had urged him to postpone because of the impeachment trial.

Also Tuesday, Senate Republicans and Democrats separately will unveil their own legislative priorities.

After the White House presents its case, scheduled to run through Thursday, senators will have up to 16 hours to submit written questions to the legal teams.

In one of the many anomalies of a presidential impeachment trial, senators are all but forbidden from speaking. One exception is when a senator has an objection, as Sen. Tom Harkin (D-Iowa) did on Friday. Another is for Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott to speak on housekeeping and scheduling matters.

Senators must submit their questions about the trial in writing to U.S. Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist, the presiding officer. He then will identify the questioner and read the question.

The two parties have decided to split their time during the question-and-answer period, rotating every two hours until all 16 hours are consumed.

After questioning by senators, the Senate must decide whether to call witnesses, a question that requires a simple majority of 51 votes. A vote to convict the president requires a two-thirds majority.

Another crucial vote will come when Democrats, as expected, offer a motion to dismiss the case, which also would require 51 votes.

Two senators were absent from the proceedings on Saturday. Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) was in his home state delivering a eulogy for his friend, the late Rep. Morris Udall (D-Ariz.). Sen. Daniel K. Inouye (D-Hawaii) was in Hawaii attending an aunt’s funeral. Inouye also missed Friday’s session.

Times staff writer Richard A. Serrano contributed to this story.

(BEGIN TEXT OF INFOBOX / INFOGRAPHIC)

THE PROSECUTION / Day Three

“We must never tolerate one law for the ruler and another for the ruled. If we do, we break faith with our ancestors from Bunker Hill, Lexington and Concord to... Saigon and Desert Storm.”

“No greater harm can be done than breaking the covenant of trust between the president and the people, between the three branches of our government and between the country and the world.”

-- Rep. Henry J. Hyde (R.-Ill) *

MORE COVERAGE

Air of Impartiality: Many conservative senators are adopting a nonpartisan approach. A14

Reporter’s Notebook: Political snapshots offer a lighthearted picture of Day 3. A16

Making Their Case: Excerpts from arguments presented by GOP House prosecutors. A17