Elizabeth Holtzman: I'm very pleased to be part of using this new medium, to communicate with people about the impeachment process and standards for impeachment. There was no Internet in 1974.

Marty2634: Do you think the House Judiciary Committee can decide whether to pursue impeachment hearings on a bi-partisan basis?

Elizabeth Holtzman: I hope they do. The public will not accept a partisan effort. One of the reasons the House Judiciary Committee action against Nixon has stood up so well is because it was bipartisan and we bent over backwards to be fair to the President. I'm disappointed that the first action taken by the House was not in that tradition. The release of the Starr report without giving the President an opportunity to see it beforehand was not fair. But , I hope the House learns.

deeep_throat: Legally, did Clinton commit perjury?

Elizabeth Holtzman:That's hard to say. Not all false statements are legally criminal. There are strict standards, including the standard of materiality. But the House Judiciary Committee should look at the question of whether, as Starr alleges, perjury was committed. But even if perjury were committed, I do not believe that that would constitute an impeachable offense.

lradn: If the independent counsel statue hadn't been created, would we have found out President Clinton might have committed perjury/obstruction of justice?

Elizabeth Holtzman: Don't know the answer to that. If there had been no investigation into Whitewater at all, or any of the other "gates" -- Filegate, Travelgate -- perhaps this inquiry never would have taken place. Remember the special prosecutor, Ken Starr, started this investigation into the Monica Lewinsky without any authorization. To do so. He only got authorization after he began, and he got authorization on the claim that Vernon Jordan had been involved in an effort to obstruct justice here and in Whitewater. But so far, that has not yet been proven.

Timehost: Here's a kind of follow-up to your comment about the way the report was released...

moodsong: Why was the report made public now?

Elizabeth Holtzman: Good question. I believe that the House of Representatives should itself have examined the report before making it public, to make sure it met standards of accuracy and fairness. Having read the report, I'm not sure that I would have voted to release it. The explicit material on sex is virtually entirely unrelated to the charges that are made.

Timehost: Here's another follow-up...to the question about perjury...

lradn: Isn't a pattern of sexual behavior material to a sexual harassment civil suit?

Elizabeth Holtzman: It might be, but as we can see from the Starr report, the relationship between the President and Monica Lewinsky was consensual. Indeed, if Monica Lewinsky is to be believed, she initiated it. That doesn't seem to fall within the pattern of sexual harassment. Further, the Paula Jones case was dismissed. But I'm not saying definitively that perjury was not committed, I'm just suggesting that there are legal questions that need to be analyzed, and the prosecutor's report is only one side of the story.

nubn_97: What happened to the Whitewater stuff? Wasn't that what started this whole thing in the first place?

Elizabeth Holtzman: Right. Whitewater seems to have resulted no finding of criminal misconduct by the President or his wife. The irony is that it was the existence of Whitewater that allowed Ken Starr to claim that this investigation would lead to uncovering a pattern of criminality stretching back to Whitewater. Namely, if Vernon Jordan was used to help Webb Hubbell get a job, and used to help get Monica Lewinsky a job, doesn't that show a pattern? That was what was used to give Starr authorization. But curiously, Lewinsky was the one who suggested using Vernon Jordan to get her a job. Not the President.

Timehost: Back to the release of the report itself....

estudiantekamagong: Isn't it important for the public to be able to make informed decisions based on actual information and not just what the media reports?

Elizabeth Holtzman: Definitely. The public should not rely on only what the media reports. But let's go back to Watergate. When the grand jury turned over material to the House Judiciary Committee, it wrote no report. It gave us the Nixon tapes and documents and some factual statements stating neutrally, setting forth, some key facts set forth in the tapes and documents. We had no arguments or briefs that the President committed impeachable offenses. This is a claim by the special prosecutor that crimes have been committed and that impeachable offenses may have been committed, and he's relying on unquestioned testimony and his interpretation of the law -- he may not be giving a fair interpretation of both. In Watergate, ultimately, the tapes were made public, and what the committee relied on was made public. And generally, the public is not privy to raw grand jury material.

Timehost: Actually, isn't there still some material from the Nixon investigations that remains under seal?

Elizabeth Holtzman: That's correct. The material that was turned over by the grand jury. Not the tapes, however, that we played or relied on. All the evidence that the committee relied on was made public. As it should be. But we don't make raw FBI files public for obvious reasons. We want to make sure that there's a test of credibility before that happens. And it may well be that in the end Starr has not properly analyzed the criminal or constitutional provisions that are applicable. He may, but we don't know that. And the House should have taken some responsibility for the document before making it public.

Timehost: As one of the crafters of the independent counsel statutes, this next question should interest you...

Mafantrouble: I'm troubled by the special prosecutor law since we've had 24 years of attack and investigate rather than letting an election stand. Can the special prosecutor law be repealed?

Elizabeth Holtzman: The special prosecutor law expires next year. And unless it's radically revised, I suspect Congress may let it die. I think the present law has some very bad provisions. First, the special prosecutor should never be permitted to write a report on impeachment. It's for Congress to determine whether there are impeachable offenses. And the original law simply required the special prosecutor to turn over information, and not to write a report. Secondly, we never intended the special prosecutor's office to be a permanent office. We explicitly rejected that option in 1978 and yet , what we seem to have is perpetual investigations of a president. I would suggest imposing a time limit, say two years, after which, unless there is some very good reason, the matter should go back to the Justice Department for completion. The job should be a 24-hour a day job, a full-time job. Mr. Starr for most of his tenure was engaged in the private practice of law as well as being independent counsel. I would also require that when there are any questions of conflict of interest, that the independent counsel be removed. Mr. Starr has had serious questions of potential conflict raised against him. He may believe he is being completely fair, but questions have been raised about his partiality. For example, the fact that he assisted in the early stages of the Paula Jones case. We intended the special prosecutor to be completely non-political.

imaginos7: Are you arguing for hearings then?

Elizabeth Holtzman: I don't think that the House Judiciary Committee should start impeachment hearings yet. I believe they need to take a very close look at the Constitution. I believe that if they did so that they would see that even if all these allegations were true, none of them amount to an impeachable offense. By starting hearings, it's putting the cart before the horse.

Cruisen2000: Do you believe that Kenneth Starr was able to go as far as he has beyond the limits of the special prosecutor because of Republican support?

Elizabeth Holtzman: I think Starr has gone as far as he has because the attorney general made a mistake in judgment in agreeing to let him investigate the Lewinsky matter without taking time to consider whether it should be done and whether he was the right person. I don't want to attack his motives. I think he is probably a very sincere person. But serious questions have been raised about his partiality. And that is wrong for the process and the office. He's the wrong man to be doing this investigation.

ILoveNay: Is adultery a crime? It is in the military

Elizabeth Holtzman: I don't believe adultery is a crime that's enforced in any state. But not every crime is an impeachable offense. Even felonies are not necessarily impeachable offenses. In Watergate, for example, the House Judiciary Committee refused to impeach Nixon for filing false tax returns, obviously a felony. The reason is that Nixon did not use the power of his office. Similarly, what's involved in the Starr report is private conduct by a president acting almost entirely in his personal capacity. A high crime and misdemeanor requires a serious abuse and use of the powers of the office of president.

CONAN99999: Do you think that other countries and terrorists will take advantage of this situation to attack U.S. interests ?

MASTERMIND_ck: Can you imagine the consequences of this soap opera over international opinion?

Elizabeth Holtzman:Well, I believe that Le Monde has vehemently attacked the Starr report. As for the first question on terrorism, I think that no country should believe that the US is unprepared. Clearly, we have military capacity , our cabinet officials are functioning. But there is a legitimate question as to the extent to which the President himself is being distracted by these matters from the important duties of his office. Maybe what this means is that he'll have to work twice as hard and there will be no more time for any Monica Lewinskys.

Director1421: Do you really think it is fair to compare this to Watergate?

Elizabeth Holtzman: No. For lots of reasons. First, in Watergate, you had a president who engaged in major abuses of power. For example, he tried to get the IRS to audit his political enemies. The President wiretapped newspaper reporters and members of his staff. The President was involved in the formation of a plumbers unit that was involved in breaking into the psychiatrist office of a political enemy. Watergate itself was a criminal act, a burglary. And the President committed serious crimes in trying to cover that up. For example, offering a presidential pardon to the burglars in return for their silence. In Watergate, you clearly had the President of the United States using the powers of his office to undermine the democracy of this country. Whereas here, you have a president engaged in private acts without almost any use of the powers of his office,

Timehost: Here's a follow-up from someone who disagrees with your statement about what crimes constitute an impeachable offense...

thefine: Not every crime is an impeachable offense? Doesn't the President take an oath of office to uphold the laws of the land?

Elizabeth Holtzman: Yes, not every crime is impeachable. That is clear from the Constitution. If the oath of office were to encompass every single crime, you'd have a president under investigation every single time. The best example is that of Nixon filing false tax returns and the house refusing to impeach. If all crimes were to be included, there wouldn't be any reason to say treason and high crimes and misdemeanors. The term high crimes and misdemeanors comes from ancient English law and is generally understood to mean a political crime -- a crime that threatens the use of the government. In fact, if you look at the phrase, it's preceded by the word "other," meaning that it has to be similar to treason and bribery, crimes that undermine the functioning of the government. And if you go back to the reason for the impeachment power, it was because the Framers were creating for the first time a strong executive, after the Articles of Confederation which had no executive. But the framers were very concerned that a strong executive could become a despot, like a king. And this was to protect against despotism in the presidency.

Joe_In_OH: How can anyone believe Clinton's lawyers? Isn't it time to stop the games and to admit what he did?

Elizabeth Holtzman: Well, that's a good point. I know that people are impatient with legalism, but I think that we need to be very careful before we decide to commence impeachment proceedings. We can't impeach a president because we don't like him, or we don't like his policies. That's what happened with Andrew Johnson, and that was a stigma for a long time and also undermined the strength of the Presidency for many decades. The President has the right to point out that these acts called crimes are not exact crimes and I think we have an obligation to try to understand that point of view. We may disagree with it, but it is imperative in this process that we listen carefully to all sides. And, as I said earlier, I believe in any case that these acts, even if crimes, do not amount to impeachable offenses. But that doesn't mean that the President's conduct, whether in the Paula Jones deposition, or with regard to Monica Lewinsky, or in terms to his truthfulness to the American people, is anything to be proud of. Quite the contrary.

Timehost: I've heard some pundits and observers argue today that if Clinton did actually admit to more than he has, he would leave himself open to more prosecution for them as crimes, if not as impeachable offenses, after he leaves office. Is that a problem for him?

Elizabeth Holtzman: Perjury in a civil case is generally not prosecuted. Or obstruction in a civil case is generally handled within the context of that civil case. Whatever side engages in that conduct has his or her case dismissed, or they lose their case, or they pay damages. I think the President, at best, was overly legalistic in his responses in the Paula Jones case. Even if his answers were technically legally correct, he is President of the United States, and he should have been frank and forthright. And the same goes for his justifying that testimony before the grand jury.

asspyrate: If Clinton is impeached, what are the chances that there will be an investigation of Gore's fund raising?

Elizabeth Holtzman: I don't think Clinton will be impeached. And I don't know that the issues are connected. The attorney general has to make a determination, I think within 90 days, as to whether she's going to appoint an independent counsel for the Gore matter. I don't think any impeachment proceeding can be resolved in that time. It took the House Judiciary Committee, from the Saturday Night Massacre, which was at the end of October 1973 to the end of July 1974, to complete its work on impeachment.

empty64: Do you think the people who elected this president fully knowing his womanizing background will accept impeachment proceedings?

Elizabeth Holtzman: I think people should require Congress to start impeachment proceedings only if they are warranted. That is, only if what has been spelled out by Starr constitutes an impeachable offense. What's happening now is completely contrary to what happened in Watergate. Then, impeachment started only after the Saturday Night Massacre, and the people rose up to demand it. The country said no president can be above the law and we are not a banana republic. The country has made no demand for impeachment here. One person has triggered the impeachment process, a person about whom serious questions have been raised. So Congress has been put on the spot, and before they start impeachment they need to study the Constitution, the Framers to determine whether there's an impeachable offense here. I don't think they will find that to be the case.

Timehost: We've heard lots about another option that Congress has...

Stamm444: Would censure be sufficient penalty for Clinton's misbehavior? Or is it too much?

Elizabeth Holtzman: I think that's an interesting issue to consider. There are two issues: one is how can Clinton be held accountable for his conduct, and the second is: how can he regain the trust of the American people? And those are not necessarily one and the same thing. But that is certainly something Congress can consider as an alternative.

downtobusiness: Do you think President ought to have been deposed in Paula Jones case at all?

Elizabeth Holtzman: That's a tough question. I think that the theory the Supreme Court was acting on is very appealing: no president is above the law. On the other hand, the Court said that the litigation could be handled without interfering with the President's functioning in office. Their prediction turned out to be wrong, to say the least. I think they need to reconsider whether presidents can be subjected to civil litigation during their presidencies. I also find troubling the practice that permits a plaintiff to ask a defendant about every sexual relationship that he or she has engaged in. Aren't there some basic privacy rights that people have? I don't know why a plaintiff is entitled to inquire into consensual sexual relationships.

denlo: On upcoming elections, how will President Clinton's problems affect the Democratic party's chances to gain seats in Congress?

Elizabeth Holtzman: I don't know. It's too early to say.

PeterBNelson: What kind meaningful rebuke would "censure" constitute? Isn't "censure" just a politician's way to do nothing, while seeming to do something?

Elizabeth Holtzman: Well, there are not many remedies available in these circumstances. Removal of a president is a grave step. We've never taken it before in the history of our country. Although Nixon would have been removed if he hadn't resigned. Censure would be a condemnation for all time, and it would be a grave mark on the legacy of this president. I wouldn't treat it so casually.

DocHollywood100: By not impeaching this president for perjuring himself twice under oath, aren't we essentially saying that so long as it is regarding his personal life, it is acceptable for a president to lie under oath? Isn't this a dangerous precedent to set?

Fairway718: Why should Clinton be held to a lower than standard than those of us in the private sector or for that fact even the military ??

Elizabeth Holtzman: First of all, in the private sector if anybody lied under oath in a private deposition, there would be no penalty outside of the civil case. In 99 out of 100 cases the average citizen would have the penalty within that civil case. So, Clinton is actually being penalized in a way that most citizens would never be for his actions in a civil deposition. I don't believe that not impeaching a president for disgraceful conduct is saying that it's acceptable conduct. The Framers of the Constitution made it very clear that they did not want Congress to have the power to remove a president because they don't like his policies, his character, his programs. They wanted a president removed when he became a threat to a democratic government. So I think there must be alternative ways to expressing dissatisfaction with his conduct. Which is not what we expect of a president, but it's not impeachable.

karav071: What, if any, implications will this have on the next two years and having pertinent items pass through legislation in a timely manner?

Elizabeth Holtzman: It depends how long this process takes. If it takes an unduly long time, it could undermine the President's effectiveness. That's why it's very important for the President to regain the trust of the American people, if he can. But on the other hand, the process cannot be speeded up for speed's sake. During Watergate, the press was hounding the Committee. to speed things up. But the chair, Peter Rodino, said absolutely not. We spent at least a month studying the Constitution and what high crimes and misdemeanors meant. We spent an enormous amount of time letting the President make his voice heard. If Congress starts impeachment proceedings, I hope they follow that precedent, to act in a non-partisan way, because otherwise that impeachment will go down as a disgrace in history, just like the Andrew Johnson impeachment went down.

Thomas_55_98: Ms Holtzman, has the President lost your trust?

Elizabeth Holtzman: Well, I would have to say , in some respect, I would scrutinize what he says more carefully. And I think that's a problem that many Americans may have. And that's really very sad, for him and for our country. He never should have shaken his finger at us, and told us a lie. He will pay a serious political cost for that and maybe he can overcome it. I hope for his sake and ours that he can.

Timehost: Thank you, very much, Elizabeth Holtzman, for joining us this evening.

Elizabeth Holtzman: I enjoyed this chat, and I want to thank everyone for the very thoughtful and probing questions.

WRITE TO US