WASHINGTON -- The White House signaled Friday that President Clinton might be willing to pay a fine as part of a censure deal to avoid impeachment, as his lawyers demanded that the House Judiciary Committee postpone next week's votes to give them time to mount an extensive defense of the president.
With the final showdown approaching, the moves reflected increasing alarm within the Clinton camp that not only are articles of impeachment virtually certain to be approved by the committee, but at least one article may be adopted by the full House. If so, Clinton would be just the second president in history to be impeached and would face the prospect of a trial in the Senate.Meanwhile, House Republicans readied articles of impeachment accusing Clinton of perjury and two other offenses Friday night, GOP officials told the Associated Press.
The charges being drafted by Judiciary Committee staff members allege perjury, obstruction of justice and abuse of power, the AP said, quoting Republican sources who spoke on condition of anonymity.
These proposed articles closely track evidence that independent counsel Kenneth Starr submitted to Congress relating to Clinton's affair with Monica Lewinsky and long campaign to cover it up.
To head it off, White House lawyers decided Friday to offer a far more aggressive defense, drafting plans to call a variety of witnesses and asking committee Republicans for three to four days to present their arguments instead of the single day they had been allotted. Such a move would force the panel todelay the impeachment votes it has scheduled to start Thursday and could complicate plans to wrap up the impeachment debate in the House by the year's end.
Judiciary Chairman Henry J. Hyde, R-Ill., offered no response Friday night, although Republicans quickly accused the White House of trying to stall until the next House takes office in January with five more Democrats.
Scattered negotiations continued percolating in an effort to find a bipartisan resolution that would allow Clinton to remain in office after accepting condemnation by Congress and possibly paying a financial penalty. But the various sides remained light-years apart, with some Democrats proposing a $300,000 fine and some Republicans insisting on as much as $4.5 million.
The White House kept its distance from any single idea but officials publicly indicated more interest than before, saying they were "aggressively listening" to any proposals and specifically opening the door to the notion of a monetary payment.
"If members in good faith want to pursue that option and approach representatives here at the White House with that option, we will listen and take anything they say seriously," said White House press secretary Joe Lockhart.
The day's developments underscored how much the political ground has shifted in the last week or so. After the Democratic successes in the November midterm elections, Clinton advisers grew confident that the House would not vote to impeach the president, even if the committee sent the matter to the floor.
The idea of "censure-plus" -- that is, accepting a censure resolution along with some additional punishment such as a fine or a contrite presidential appearance in the well of the House -- had seemingly been taken off the table.
But within the Clinton circle, advisers have experienced a sinking realization that he still faces a genuine threat.
The answers Clinton sent last week to 81 questions posed by Hyde aggravated on-the-fence moderate Republicans and even some Democrats who viewed them as evasive. And partisan lines appeared to harden as House Majority Whip Tom DeLay, -R-Texas, stepped in to rally Republicans.
Rep. Charles E. Schumer, D-N.Y., a Judiciary member who predicted just after the election that the panel would find a way to "wiggle out" of impeachment, had a far more dire assessment, telling reporters that it's now "a neck-and-neck vote" on the floor. "The simple arithmetic is this will be decided by one or two votes and that's frightening to me," he said.
Another close Clinton ally who has been canvassing House members estimated that only 10 Republicans are currently likely to oppose impeachment, less than half of previous counts. With an 11-vote Republican margin and at least three Democrats publicly committed to impeachment, that could mean passage and a Senate trial.
"There's a concern (in the White House) that they could very well result in a vote and they very well may be facing four months of trial in the Senate," the adviser said. "That's a horrendous thought."
With that in mind, the White House opted for a full-bore attack before the committee. While some advisers had once favored a simple, straightforward defense argument without witnesses, White House counsel Charles F.C. Ruff and special counsel Gregory B. Craig Friday told the committee that they want three to four days to present multiple panels of witnesses to talk about constitutional standards for impeachment; standards for prosecution of perjury, obstruction of justice and abuse of power; and prosecutorial misconduct and "tainted evidence."
Ruff, in an earlier letter, also objected to Hyde's plan to allow committee members to question the president's lawyers as if they were witnesses, pointing to Watergate when President Richard M. Nixon's counsel, James St. Clair, made an uninterrupted closing argument before the panel.
Committee Republicans were quick to denounce the White House request for additional hearings as both inappropriate and politically calculated.
"These are all red herrings," said a committee aide who asked not to be identified. "It's just obviously a play to move this into next year, where they have more votes."
Republican leaders are determined to finish deliberations on impeachment by the end of the year, and DeLay said that members who participated in a Wednesday conference call were "unanimous" in that view. Hyde had scheduled committee votes to begin Thursday and conclude by Saturday, with floor action planned for the next week.
The White House countered that Hyde had pledged last month that "the president's counsel will have unlimited time to present his witnesses."
The Clinton request "certainly gives them enough time to wrap up this year, no question about it," said White House spokesman James E. Kennedy. Independent counsel Kenneth W. Starr "had four years to investigate the president, the committee had three months. So asking for three or four days to defend the president of the United States doesn't seem unreasonable."