WASHINGTON -- Wayne Owens, a former Democratic representative from Utah, endured a wild political roller-coaster ride during 3 1/2 hours Tuesday as a defense witness for President Clinton in impeachment hearings.
The dips and turns included one Republican accusing Owens of lying about his real stands on Watergate to help Clinton. In turn, Owens attacked House Republicans, accusing them of abusing power and teaching children more than they need to know about sex.However, Owens was the only defense witness who said Clinton "lied," not just "deceived" others. He insisted that Clinton be punished -- but only by censure. He even argued briefly with Rep. Chris Cannon, R-Utah, about whether censure is constitutional.
At one point Owens told members to vote their conscience -- and even impeach Clinton if they feel his lying threatens the U.S. system of government. But at another, he said they shouldn't impeach unless they are confident the Senate would vote in turn to remove Clinton from office -- which he doubts.
All of that action was spun around Owens' central premise that Clinton is no Richard Nixon, and his lying about an affair is deplorable but not impeachable -- and that such personal folly is nothing like the misuse of official presidential power by Nixon.
Owens was one of three people who had served on the Judiciary Committee in 1974 -- when it voted to impeach Nixon -- that was called by Clinton's lawyers to testify Tuesday.
Owens came under fire shortly after he outlined why he voted in 1974 not to impeach Nixon on a count of tax evasion. He said evidence of such fraud was overwhelming, but he voted against it because it was unrelated to Nixon's official conduct. Likewise, he said, Clinton should not be impeached for personal misconduct.
But Rep. Charles Canady, R-Mass., accused Owens of misrepresenting his record. He read Owens' statements during 1974 debates where Owens said he would vote against the tax fraud count because the committee lacked "any hard evidence that will sustain tying the president to the fraudulent deed."
Canady told Owens, "I find it a little disturbing that you would come before this committee today and make an assertion that is contrary to your own statement in the debate."
Later, Owens and Democrats accused Canady of unfairly twisting Owens' words. Rep. Tom Barrett, D-Wis., slipped Owens a copy of his full 1974 statement, which Owens noted included his concerns about personal vs. official misconduct. But Canady said Owens still said in 1974 his vote was based on "lack of evidence" -- which he now says was overwhelming.
On another front, Owens attacked Republicans when Rep. Bob Inglis, R-S.C., complained the old Watergate committee members were bringing no new facts -- and were only "spinning" old evidence for Clinton.
Owens accused Republicans leadership of abuse of power for reportedly planning not to allow a vote on censure, only on impeachment.
"Either they impeach or turn him free. I think that's bordering on an abuse of power," Owens said.
In an unusual move for a defense witness, Owens said he believes Clinton did lie and should be punished. "This president should be condemned for his action. He did lie to a grand jury in my view." But, he said, the punishment should be censure, not impeachment.
Owens debated Cannon about whether censure is constitutional. When Cannon said he doesn't think censure "means much," he asked Owens, "How would you make it substantial?"
Owens noted press reports say that the president is willing to pay a fine of up to $300,000 -- "you couldn't assess it, because you have no constitutional authority to do it" -- and that he might agree to the embarrassing act of standing in the House to hear his censure.
Cannon said, "I think that the submission of the president to either the penalty or the standing in the well of the House and demeaning the office of the presidency is a far graver constitutional problem than the inconvenience of an impeachment hearing," because the Constitution mentions only impeachment as a punishment.
Cannon added, "I find myself compelled to think that there are only two alternatives: impeachment or vindication."
In other points, Owens told members that if they feel "strongly and intellectually" that Clinton's lies threaten the system of government, "then I would vote to impeach."
He also urged them to follow their consciences. "You just have to say the consequences be damned; I will do what my conscience tells me."
But at another point, Owens noted that an impeachment trial in the Senate could take a year, divert the nation from important issues and disrupt the country. So he advised members to impeach only if they feel Clinton "would be convicted by the Senate."
He added he doubts that would happen.