Senators prepare for final decision

Lewinsky scandal: As Clinton fights for his political life with his most heartfelt apology, the wheels of impeachment roll

HENRY HYDE, a Republican Congressman from the North-Western suburbs of Chicago, reflected yesterday on the task ahead of him: "This is a lousy job but somebody has to do it. Nobody looks forward to this traumatic journey that we are embarking on."

Mr Hyde is the chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, which will be responsible for carrying out impeachment hearings on President Bill Clinton. This veteran Congressman, who served on the panel that examined the Iran-Contra arms scandal, will be one of the key figures in deciding whether the President will be impeached and brought for trial before the Senate.

The route that would take him there is by no means certain. The Constitution created the impeachment process, but does not detail precisely how it should operate. Newt Gingrich and Dick Gephardt, the leading Republican and Democrat in the House of Representatives, met colleagues yesterday who will play key roles in any impeachment, to lay down the ground rules.

The Starr report lists the charges for which Mr Clinton might be impeached, including obstruction of justice, perjury, witness tampering and abuse of power. Any or all of these could be true; but that does not mean that they are necessarily crimes, or that they are impeachable offences. Indeed, the committee has yet to agree on what, precisely, constitutes "high crimes and misdemeanours," for which the Constitution prescribes impeachment.

The aim of yesterday's meeting was to broker differences between the parties over how the Starr report will be handled. "Any impeachment cannot succeed unless it is done in bipartisan or nonpartisan way," said Mr Hyde.

Some Democrats still believe that the President can escape his fate. "We are not planning for impeachment," said John Conyers of Michigan. Only after it has held its hearings would the committee decide whether or not to recommend impeachment, and this would then have to be ratified by a majority of the Republican-dominated Congress.

Mr Clinton tried yesterday to shore up his support on Capitol Hill, meeting with House Democrats and once again apologising for his behaviour. Speculation is running rife in Washington that he will once again apologise in some form at a prayer meeting to be held in Washington tomorrow, and that Bill Clinton may even accept the need for some punishment such as a Congressional censure, as long as it is done rapidly.

But it is probably too late for this. Even some of Mr Clinton's own party, including Senator Patrick Moynihan, now want impeachment proceedings to go ahead, and have said so publicly. Mr Clinton's legal efforts to get early access to the Starr report or delay it have also been stymied. The President who had sown the wind "is reaping the whirlwind," said one Democrat, Robert Byrd, a former Senate Majority leader yesterday. "Talk of impeachment is in the air," he added.

Such talk will turn to action in the next few days. First the House Rules Committee must agree a resolution that empowers the Judiciary Committee to set up procedures for hearings, which would allow the Starr report to be released.

It hopes to have a motion ready by today, which could be voted on by the full House tomorrow. This first, procedural stage will not be easy: they have passed from legal detail to political process. And there is little practical experience in running an operation like this in Congress.

The key issues that have emerged as problems are the ability of the Judiciary Committee to use its powers to compel people to give testimony, the dissemination of the report, and the involvement of Democrats as well as Republicans in the planning of any hearings. Yesterday's meeting was requested by Mr Gephardt after he became worried that Democrats were being excluded. "Obviously, dealing with this report must be done in a truly bipartisan manner," a spokesman said. "He had concerns that Democrats weren't included."

Once these definitional and procedural questions have been decided, the House Judiciary Committee - or, more likely, a sub-committee - would hold its own hearings. Congress is due to sit only for another six weeks before it breaks for the mid-term elections in November, returning only in January. It seems unlikely that any hearings could be completed in this time, so an inquiry could stretch into the beginning of next year.

When the hearings are finished, the Judiciary Committee must decide whether to recommend impeachment. This would be voted upon by the whole House and, if it agrees to impeachment, Mr Clinton would be tried in front of the whole Senate, presided over by William Rehnquist, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court.

It is unlikely to go that far. Though Andrew Jackson was impeached and went for trial, Richard Nixon resigned once impeachment had been recommended. Mr Clinton, too, would probably walk the plank, leaving Vice-President Al Gore to steer the ship of state through to the 2000 Presidential elections.