TOM OLIPHANT: Well, we got – we got the moment before the climactic moments of this inquiry — I think in terms of testimony and everything, this panel has ended the House Judiciary Committee’s impeachment inquiry, and other than hearing from the poor defendant’s lawyer and having the case summarized and articles presented and voted on, the case is pretty much over.

JIM LEHRER: Do you agree?

STUART TAYLOR: Yes. Of course, we haven’t seen the articles yet. The indictment hasn’t quite been – but we know the rough outlines of what it will be – perjury here, perjury there, grand jury – obstruction of justice, which really is in this case – boils down largely to witness tampering with Betty Currie and Monica Lewinsky. And obviously, the censure option is coming more and more into focus in this committee. We’ve seen reports that the chairman will allow a vote on censure after a vote on impeachment to give those who favor that an option. I think one thing that may be very difficult – lots of people say let’s just censure him – is okay, what is the censure motion going to say, and how do you get all the people who want to say he lied, he lied, he’s a criminal, prosecute him, together with all the people who want to say he was a naughty boy, and we don’t want to really look at it anymore, plus the people who say a fine would be an unconstitutional bill of attainder and those who like Governor Weld of Massachusetts – the former governor – say, oh, no, you can do that if he agrees to it – I think that’s going to be very tricky business.

JIM LEHRER: President Clinton’s legal defense before the House Judiciary Committee. Stuart Taylor of the National Journal and Newsweek magazines and Tom Oliphant of the Boston Globe are back to offer their commentary. The NewsHour’s chief Washington correspondent, Margaret Warner, is here to assist me in keeping the story line going, among other things. And speaking of the story line, tell us what it is this afternoon.

MARGARET WARNER: Well, this is the big moment that everyone’s been waiting for, I think the President’s detractors, as well as his supporters. This is when Charles Ruff, the White House counsel, lays out the president’s defense both factually and on the law. And he –

JIM LEHRER: And there he is, sitting. He’s already at the witness table, waiting for the committee members, and the man directly behind him is David Kendall, who is the president’s personal lawyer, now being obstructed by a – there you go – there, you can see him – just to Mr. Ruff’s left. That is David Kendall, the president’s personal lawyer, who is not scheduled to participate in this, this afternoon, correct?

MARGARET WARNER: That’s correct. He did the questioning of Kenneth Starr when Kenneth Starr appeared before the committee. But he has been kept out of a public role in these hearings this week.

JIM LEHRER: And Mr. Ruff will – will obviously be speaking – what he says will be based on the 182-page paper that the White House has offered, correct?

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. They 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.

JIM LEHRER: And, once again, good morning from Washington. I’m Jim Lehrer. Welcome to PBS’s special NewsHour coverage of the House Judiciary Committee hearings on the impeachment of President Clinton. Today, the President’s attorneys wrap up their two-day impeachment defense. We expect to hear from a panel of five attorneys on the standards for obstruction of justice and perjury and then from Charles Ruff, the White House counsel. We’ll be broadcasting today’s proceedings in full. The NewsHour’s chief Washington correspondent, Margaret Warner, is here with me this morning. So are two commentators: Stuart Taylor, a columnist for the National Journal and Newsweek magazines, and Boston Globe columnist Tom Oliphant.

JIM LEHRER: Margaret, the plan for the day is what?

MARGARET WARNER: Well, as you said, Jim, first we’re going to hear a panel of five lawyers, former prosecutors or current prosecutors. And they’re going to – very much as yesterday – talk about the standards for prosecuting both obstruction of justice and perjury. The sort of star witness –

JIM LEHRER: In criminal – in a criminal –

MARGARET WARNER: In a criminal –

JIM LEHRER: If this was, in fact, a criminal case.

MARGARET WARNER: Exactly.

JIM LEHRER: That’s what they’re going to be talking about.

TOM OLIPHANT: Yes, as far as that goes, but it may be necessary to go further because there are disagreements within the Republican majority that involve how to write the articles of impeachment by the time they’re to be submitted on the weekend. You know, they don’t have agreement on what the charges are yet, and they may disagree among themselves as to some of the perjury allegations. Some may not want to vote for perjury charges involving the deposition in the Jones case last January. Other members oppose perjury on the charge of abuse of power, depending on how it’s written. So while I think Marty Meehan is exactly right, that 21 to 16 for something ñ it’s very interesting that as of tonight we have nothing in the way of a charge.

JIM LEHRER: And so then the next issue on this, Stuart, is that the real audience today are those 20 to 25 ñ how many ever there are ñ moderate Republicans — not on the committee but elsewhere ñ who could eventually decide this by weekend, when this goes to the floor of the House.

STUART TAYLOR: That’s right.

JIM LEHRER: Actually by next weekend.

JIM LEHRER: And good morning from Washington. I’m Jim Lehrer. Welcome to PBS’s special NewsHour coverage of the House Judiciary Committee hearings on the impeachment of President Clinton.

Today the President’s attorneys begin a two-day defense presentation. We expect to hear from Gregory Craig, special assistant to the President and special counsel and to Charles Ruff, the White House counsel. As part of the presentation, they will call four panels of witnesses over the next two days. We will be broadcasting today’s proceedings in full. The NewsHour’s chief Washington correspondent, Margaret Warner, is here with me this morning, and so are two commentators, Stuart Taylor, a columnist for the National Journal and Newsweek magazines and Boston Globe columnist Tom Oliphant.

JIM LEHRER: Tom, how would you characterize what is to happen here today and tomorrow?

TOM OLIPHANT: This is going to be a little weird on one level at least in that we are going to see an actual defense on the law and the Constitution and more on the facts than some people realize for two days against charges that have yet to be made. Behind the scenes this committee’s Republican majority is working on the charges which have not yet been presented in detail. But you will hear an actual defense with a beginning, a middle, and an end.

JIM LEHRER: And there you see on the screen Congressman Henry Hyde, the chairman of the committee, who said yesterday at a news conference that he felt that the Republicans had made a compelling case for impeachment. Stuart, what would you add to what Tom said about what this is about these next two days?

JIM LEHRER: Good afternoon from Washington. I’m Jim Lehrer. And we’re back with our special PBS NewsHour coverage of Kenneth Starr’s testimony before the House Judiciary Committee. Stuart Taylor of the National Journal and Newsweek Magazines and author/journalist Elizabeth Drew are back to offer their commentary. The NewsHour’s chief Washington correspondent, Margaret Warner, is here to assist me in keeping the story line going, among other things.

JIM LEHRER: Margaret, the first order of business now, when they reconvene, the two counsels are going to cross-examine Starr. Tell us about these two men.

MARGARET WARNER: Well, David Schippers, the Republican counsel, actually is a lifelong Democrat, but he’s a 68-year-old former prosecutor. He’s spent a lifetime as a prosecutor in Chicago, and he really brings the prosecutor’s approach to this. When he laid out the case for the Republicans back before they voted for the impeachment inquiry, he said that he believes very much, as Henry Hyde does, that lying under oath is not only an impeachable offense, but it really attacks the very foundation of our rule of law. And he made that very clear.

Abby Lowell is 20 years younger, 48. He’s a lawyer, of course, but he’s had a much more sort of inside Washington practice. He’s defended a number of –

JIM LEHRER: There he is there. There he is now on camera, right?

MARGARET WARNER: Yes. In fact, he’s spent some time on camera too doing court commentary on television, but he has also defended individuals such as Jim Wright, who have been under fire for ethics violations, or alleged violations. He made clear in his comments two months ago that as far as he was concerned, or as far as the committee was – as far as the committee Democrats were concerned – having an improper relationship and lying about it was not an impeachable offense.

JIM LEHRER: All right. An afternoon break. We’re uncertain at this point as – let’s see – Congressman Gekus – there are 35 actually – yes, there are – there are still 30 to go — Margaret, if I have counted right. Margaret Warner is here, along with Stuart Taylor and Elizabeth Drew for this break. As you heard Chairman Hyde say, they will be back at 5 after 2. I wouldn’t take any bets on that, but that’s neither here nor there.

JIM LEHRER: But anyhow, the one question that’s been unanswered at this point – at least we don’t have an answer to it – is that the original plan was that the minority counsel, Abbe Lowell, was going to question Mr. Starr for 30 minutes and that got extended to an hour and then a little bit more, and then Mr. Schippers, David Schippers, the minority counsel, was going to question Mr. Starr, and then the members were going to do it. Obviously, they’ve made a change.

Where do you think things stand at this stage of the game, Stuart?

JIM LEHRER: And to some analysis and commentary about this day from Stuart Taylor, columnist for the National Journal and Newsweek, and author/journalist Elizabeth Drew.

JIM LEHRER: Elizabeth, what, in your opinion, was the most important thing that happened today?

ELIZABETH DREW: I think the most important thing that happened today was that it was a very large and dramatic example or showing that this is a very troubling precedent. Now, Zoe Lofgren was talking about the lack of dignity and sobriety. She was part of – she was on the staff of someone on the Impeachment Committee in 1974. I covered it. Now, you know, you don’t want to bathe in nostalgia, say those were the great old days and it should be like that, but this struck me as not particularly thoughtful. Most people made up their minds, and –

JIM LEHRER: So you would agree with me that it’s still 21 to 16?

JIM LEHRER: The president’s personal attorney, David Schippers, is the majority counsel. They will each question Kenneth Starr when we come back at 8:25. We want to have some comments here now of again from Stuart Taylor and Elizabeth Drew, who along with NewsHour Chief Washington Correspondent Margaret Warner has been watching Kenneth Starr’s testimony.

I’ve been making some rough calculations here. Maybe the three of you have a different calculation than I do, but it seemed to me – we’ve just finished the 37 members of the committee – 21 Republicans, 16 Democrats – if my calculations are correct, all 21 of the Republicans asked friendly questions of Mr. Starr, all 16 of the Democrats asked hostile questions. Is that a surprise, and is that indicative of anything significant?

ELIZABETH DREW: It’s indicative of what’s happened to our politics, Jim. In the Nixon impeachment there were on that Judiciary Committee five members – two Democrats, three Republicans, who formed a swing group, who were genuinely undecided. The Democrats were conservative Southern Democrats. In the end in voting on the articles of impeachment six Republicans broke with the president and supported some of the articles. But our politics since then have become so polarized and as we were talking this morning, this committee has now become the receptacle of the extreme wings of both parties. They’re there by design to fight out the social issues and protect their parties on the social issues. So the whole idea that there would be –

JIM LEHRER: Because the Judiciary Committee traditionally handles those kinds of things.

ELIZABETH DREW: It does flag burning – abortion –

JIM LEHRER: Sure.