Editorial: Congress eyes the Starr report

REP. John Ensign has painted himself into a corner.

The Nevada Republican decided last week that President Clinton should resign, even though he had not yet read independent counsel Kenneth Starr's report to Congress on the Monica Lewinsky investigation. Ensign said Monday resignation is warranted because the president has "no credibility left." As an example, he notes that in his nationally televised address following his grand jury testimony on Aug. 17, Clinton lashed out at Starr instead of taking responsibility for his own actions.

The Nevada Republican claims, however, that if articles of impeachment are drawn up against Clinton, he will be able to consider the charges objectively. But Ensign's assertion that the president should resign contradicts his view that he would be able to make an impartial judgment on a vote of impeachment, one of the most important responsibilities for a member of the House.

House Speaker Newt Gingrich has been imploring members of the House to refrain from a rush to judgment on the president's fate. Over the weekend Gingrich re-emphasized the need for fairness. "I think you cannot render ... any judgment until you have given the president a chance to respond and given the Judiciary Committee a chance to do its job," Gingrich said.

A courtroom analogy might be helpful to illustrate Ensign's irresponsibility. If this were a criminal case, no respectable judge would allow Ensign to be seated as a juror because he has already made up his mind. It would be as if Ensign said prior to trial that the accused should go to prison, even though no formal evidence had been presented yet.

One of the biggest concerns for GOP strategists is that the public will believe Republicans are not giving the president a fair shake, that their real motive is political retribution. Fortunately most Republicans have followed the lead of Gingrich and Rep. Henry Hyde, R-Ill., who chairs the Judiciary Committee, in seeking a rational deliberation.

Ensign would do well to follow the example set by Rep. Jim Gibbons, R-Nev. Gibbons has read the Starr report and expressed his outrage at the president's immoral behavior, reflecting an almost universal view held by both Democrats and Republicans. But, just as importantly, Gibbons has not made a decision on whether the president should be impeached or whether he should resign. Gibbons has said repeatedly that any inquiry should be nonpartisan and fair.

Everyone is going to have an opinion on the president's conduct, including elected officials. But our elected representatives in Washington are supposed to maintain a higher standard, especially those members who may decide whether the people's mandate in a presidential election should be overturned.

Resignation has happened just once in this nation's history. President Richard Nixon resigned in 1974 as the House started its process to impeach him. Even this option is perilous. Former Senate Majority Leader Howard Baker, a Republican, told syndicated columnist David Broder that two forced presidential resignations in 25 years could be a dangerous precedent.

Impeachment -- as it should be -- has been used sparingly. Only once has a president actually been tried by the Senate. President Andrew Johnson survived in 1868, though, as the trial to remove him from office failed by one vote.

So it's clear that resignation and the impeachment process are not events to be taken lightly. What a congressman believes may make for a witty sound bite on the evening news isn't necessarily what is in the best interest of the nation, especially in such a grave matter.

It's disappointing that Ensign has embarked on this reckless course. Ensign should remember his job is to gather all the facts first, and only then render a judgment on what may be one of the most important decisions he may ever make as a member of the U.S. House of Representatives.

archive