WASHINGTON (AllPolitics, February 2) -- Seeking an exit strategy for President Bill Clinton's impeachment trial, Senate Republicans have drafted two versions of a formal "finding of fact" against the president, a measure Democrats complain is unconstitutional.

GOP officials, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said the "fact-finding" document Republicans are laboring over also says Clinton engaged in a course of conduct designed to "alter, delay, impede, cover up and conceal" evidence and testimony in the sexual harassment lawsuit that Paula Jones filed against him.

The document is subject to change, according to several officials, who said Republicans hope to attract the support of at least a few Democrats. But Wednesday Democrats waged and all-out war against the so-called "findings of fact."

It currently exists in two versions. One is a bare-bones recitation of the findings; the other employs identical language but refers to specific acts to buttress the claims.

But Republican Sen. Pete Domenici of New Mexico said Wednesday, "the momentum is behind the simple more ... basic findings rather than the detailed ones."

Neither makes a finding that Clinton committed perjury or obstructed justice, as alleged in the articles of impeachment.

The language in the current GOP draft says that Clinton swore to "tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth" when called to testify before Starr's grand jury last August 17.

"Contrary to that oath, William Jefferson Clinton willfully provided false and misleading testimony to the grand jury."

It also says that with regard to the second article of impeachment, the Senate finds that Clinton "engaged in a course of conduct designed to alter, delay, impede, cover up and conceal the existence of evidence and testimony related to a duly instituted federal civil rights action and a federal grand jury investigation."

The longer version of the draft cites numerous acts by Clinton in support of the two findings.

It says he provided false and misleading testimony about the nature and details of his relationship with Lewinsky, about prior "false and misleading testimony" in a deposition in the Jones lawsuit and about his efforts to "shape the testimony of" others.

In support of the claim that he sought to conceal evidence, it lists several points, including that Clinton encouraged Lewinsky to submit a false affidavit and sought to conceal his gifts to her.

With Clinton expected to be acquitted handily on both articles of impeachment, the general concept of a fact- finding document has gained currency as senators have searched for a way to hold the president accountable for his effort to conceal his relationship with Lewinsky.

"We believe that if we don't do this, we have provided history with a wrong interpretation of this case. If there are no findings the president's obviously going to win, then the conclusion could very well be that he did nothing wrong, nothing whatsoever wrong," Domenici said.

"I believe that it is the way to bring this trial to an earlier ending on a less partisan note that makes clear that though the president will not be removed from office -- which it's clear that he will not -- that the Senate does not intend to exonerate him or vindicate his behavior," Democratic Sen. Joe Lieberman of Connecticut said in explaining the approach's appeal.

But other Democratic senators are not eager to consider the plan.

"You can't sort of split the baby by saying, well, he's guilty but we're not going to convict him," Sen. John Breaux (D-Louisiana) said. "It would be unconstitutional to have a findings of fact that suggests the president is guilty but we're not going to convict him, and do it not by a two-thirds majority but by a simple majority."

Sen. Edward Kennedy (D-Massachusetts) called the measure a "desperate attempt by the Republicans to save face."

"The Republican proposals of finding of facts are really not the findings of fact, they are findings of fiction," Kennedy said. "It's a desperate attempt to further embarrass the president of the United States and it's an attempt to save their own political position."

Sen. Tom Harkin (D-Iowa) said Wednesday he has contacted several legal and constitutional scholars who agree "there is no constitutional or historical precedent for any kind of findings of fact."

He said the experts argue such a move would undermine the two-thirds majority required in the Constitution, it would turn impeachment into a punitive weapon against the president and force the court of impeachment into a legislative role.

"If the door is opened on findings of fact it obviously leaves rooms for others. Would we have findings that Ken Starr abused his power? How about finding that he left out , purposely, exculpatory material?" Harkin asked.

The Democratic assault on findings of fact could backfire, causing some Republicans who don't like the idea to reconsider. As one senior GOP leadership aide said, "anything that gets Democrats this upset can't be all bad."

Under the emerging GOP strategy, the fact-finding declaration would be voted on before a final vote on the two articles of impeachment, which stem from Clinton's effort to conceal his sexual relationship with Monica Lewinsky.

White House spokesman Joe Lockhart attacked the GOP plan, telling reporters it sounded like "going around the Constitution." Lockhart said senators have only two options in the trial, either to vote on the articles of impeachment or to vote to dismiss the charges.

He said the White House remains receptive to a censure of the president, but only after the impeachment trial has ended. Some Democrats, including California's Sen. Dianne Feinstein, are working on censure proposals.

That distinction -- whether the formal criticism of Clinton is voted before or after the trial ends -- is shaping up as a crucial one in the political struggle between the two parties.

Democratic officials want any censure to occur outside the trial. Republicans want it voted on as part of the proceedings, in part to blunt any claims by the White House that the entire impeachment proceedings were a partisan effort by Republicans.

Republicans discussed the proposed findings in a closed-door session. The impeachment trial is in recess until Thursday, while key individuals in the case -- Lewinsky, Vernon Jordan and Sidney Blumenthal -- were questioned under oath by lawyers for the House prosecutors and the White House.

Under a GOP timetable in effect, debate and votes on a formal finding of fact could occur as early as next week. Any Republican proposal would be subject to amendment.

CNN's Candy Crowley Jonathan Karl and The Associated Press contributed to this report.

Wednesday, February 3, 1999

• GOP senators discuss exit strategy, ask Clinton for deposition
• Dems oppose drafts of 'fact-finding' declarations
• Senate must decide on live testimony
• Gore, Quayle get in position for 2000
• 'First in the Nation' special transcripts: Lamar Alexander | Bill Bradley | George W. Bush | Steve Forbes | Al Gore | John McCain | Dan Quayle
• U.N ambassador nominee Holbrooke agrees to pay ethics fine
• Prosecutor who headed Clinton fund-raising probe quits
• IRS clears Newt Gingrich's college course
• Clinton asks for bipartisan support of Social Security, Medicare plan
• Congress sees E-mail flood during trial
• Clinton administration proposes new air travel fees
• Poll: Hillary Clinton leads Rudolph Giuliani
• Impeachment trial is selling books
• Poll: Americans critical of Senate impeachment trial
• President's brother says Clintons 'back on track'
• Congress renews efforts to curb costs of regulations
• First lady spotlights working moms to push budget proposals
• Gov. Bush says Florida won't play Powerball
• Clinton trial boosting DNC fund-raising
• Conservative leaders interviewing half dozen GOP hopefuls
• Politicians break vow of silence -- for a joke
• California governor hopefuls spent $119.9 million
• Animal rights activists push to end cockfighting

ARCHIVES

Search CNN/AllPolitics by           Enter keyword(s)       go    help