Timehost: We're very pleased to be working with COURT TV on tonight's chat about the Clinton scandals. We're being joined by COURT TV chief anchor and managing editor, Fred Graham. In addition to being a veteran legal reporter, Mr. Graham is also a lawyer.

Timehost: He's covered the Supreme Court, the Justice Department, the FBI, and Watergate, and many of the most important legal stories of our time.

Timehost: Welcome, Fred.

Fred Graham: Thanks. Let's go!

very_ape1: Does Clinton have any chances to get out of this?

Fred Graham: Yes. I'd say the odds are that he'll get a censure, plus some minor punishment of some kind.

TabithaSHWN: Mr. Graham, If Congress does decide to begin impeachment hearings against Clinton, how long do the hearings last and, if it is a matter of several months, will it be worth it to impeach him since he only has two years of his term left to serve?

Fred Graham: They don't have to have much in the way of hearings, because Starr has done so much of the evidence-gathering.

coppertop98_98: What do you think of Bill Clinton's statement during the Watergate scandal, that any president who lied to America should resign?

Fred Graham:Both he and Hillary Clinton said things during Watergate that have come back to haunt them. But the statute of limitations on that statement has run.

Timehost: It seems as though we may actually see the videotape of Clinton's grand jury testimony...how unusual would that be?

Fred Graham: Maybe. But the networks are anguished about it, because so much is X-rated. Court TV will run it live and uncut.

briankpark: Do you think releasing the Starr report to the public on the internet will be a precedent for this to happen much more in the future?

Fred Graham: I hope most of what is happening will never happen again. Hopefully, nothing close to this will take place again. But if it does, it'll go right on the Internet.

eronj: What are the chances that Clinton will survive if the impeachment process begins?

Fred Graham: Today former Senator Howard Baker predicted that the House will impeach Clinton, but the Senate will never act on it. The chances are that the House will do something, but then some sort of plea bargain will be struck.

sinofthecity: Do you think this will lead to a Republican president in 2000?

Fred Graham: It should strengthen the chances of a GOP win. But maybe the GOP will do well this year, get overconfident again, and irritate the public so much that the Democrats could win the Presidency in 2000.

tjb_1123: Mr. Graham, how much precedence is there about lying in a civil deposition -- I heard people are rarely prosecuted for that?

Fred Graham: They are rarely prosecuted, but the Clinton Justice Department recently prosecuted someone for lying in a civil deposition about sex. Sound familiar?

Marty2634: Hello Fred, Are you surprised knowing that Clinton is a lawyer that he deliberately broke the law to cover up an affair with Monica Lewinsky?

Fred Graham: I'm much more surprised that a President would lie under oath. The stakes were so high it takes your breath away.

_mommys_little_monster_: Why isn't Monica in trouble too?

Fred Graham: Monica got immunity in exchange for her testimony. But I wonder what kind of life she'll have with every man she meets thinking about the Starr report.

angelinfl_74: What effect do you see this situation having on foreign affairs? Because from the people overseas that I've spoken with, this is a joke to them and they feel the matter should be dropped and left as Mr. Clinton's personal life.

Fred Graham: Americans shouldn't run their country so they won't be sneered at by Europeans. Our system is geared to provide stable governments, and it has usually put European governments to shame.

Timehost: Could President Clinton go to court to try to block the release of the grand jury testimony?

Fred Graham: He could, but he'd lose. Congress established the rule that requires grand jury secrecy. Congress has now waived the rule in the Clinton case.

patanderri: Who gave the OK to investigate Clinton's sex life

Fred Graham: Janet Reno. The theory was that the Clinton team had been accused of covering up the President's misdeeds, and that this was another example of that.

brenleeb: Fred, do you think the video should be released?

Fred Graham: Yes. Most people get their information from TV these days. But the public reaction could be unpredictable. It might be against Starr -- or the TV media for broadcasting it.

ladybugx2000: Do I understand correctly that most grand jury findings are kept confidential because they tend to be slanderous, not allowing the defendant to present a defense?

Fred Graham: Yes. Grand juries hear many allegations that prove to be false, or not proven. Theoretically, it becomes public only through an indictment, which the defendant can then contest in court.

Aa_6969: Where is Gore in all of this mess?

Fred Graham: Gore is being faithful. This should hurt him if the public reacts against all this, but he may get respect for being a stand-up guy.

Timehost: Another question about the videotape...

Plemroe: Why release the tape when it is one-sided? It is only a prosecutor asking questions... right?

Fred Graham: That's the Clinton side's objections to all of this. They say the Starr Report is just a prosecutor's brief, and they're right. But Congress (via the GOP majority) has spoken.

Timehost: Why did the President's lawyers allow his testimony to be recorded on videotape?

Fred Graham: The question is why did Clinton ever agree to testify? Admitting he had an affair and lied about it has been devastating. As long as he didn't admit it, all was "alleged." The videotaping was a concession to Clinton. It saved him the disgrace of being hauled before the grand jury at the court house.

Timehost: Couldn't the President have simply insisted that he would testify via closed circuit TV and that it would not be videotaped?

Fred Graham: I don't know the answer. This was the result of an elaborate deal. There was precedent for having presidential testimony videotaped. (Reagan did it. Clinton has several times.)

der_konig: What role should public opinions polls play, if any, in the impeachment process?

Fred Graham: A lot. Impeachment is a legal/political process, and the President should not be removed (and won't be) unless the public has decided he should go.

Mecayla: Do you think the media is hyping this too much.?

Fred Graham: No. What could be more newsworthy than the possible impeachment of a president? But the competition between all-news cable networks has provided more coverage than a lot of people want--or think proper.

Marty2634: Hello Fred, compare the coverage of the OJ Simpson Criminal trial to the controversy surrounding President Clinton and his possible impeachment from office?

Fred Graham: The only common thread is the volume of coverage. The Simpson case was not worthy of all that attention, according to many observers. This is an historic development, which the public should monitor closely, and draw judgments from.

Stamm444: If Clinton resigns, without a pardon, what kind of legal jeopardy might he be in?

Fred Graham: Bad. Starr might indict him, and perhaps seal the indictment until he's out of office. The statute of limitations is five years, and he'll be out of office by then. I think he could well be held in criminal contempt by Judge Susan Webber Wright, who presided over the Paula Jones Deposition, in which he lied so often.

Aa_6969: Everyone is condemning his activities with Ms Lewinsky, but he still has a high approval rating, is there a reason for that

Fred Graham: What ever became of the notion that America was a puritanical society that would climb the walls over such a scandal! I don't know. I do wonder why there hasn't been more outrage over Clinton's lying. It's a clichˇ but good economic times atones for many sins.

der_konig: What do you think about Clinton's defense of "legally accurate?"

Fred Graham: Nobody but a lawyer could believe it, but it's necessary, in the minds of his lawyers. If he admits he committed perjury, that's a basis for impeachment, criminal prosecution, and perhaps a revival of the Paula Jones case.

Timehost: Here we've got the same question from two different perspectives...

scrambledeggs98: Isn't it true that when Clinton committed perjury in a court of law, it was not to hide a sex scandal from his wife, but to avoid a multi-million dollar lawsuit, and doesn't that mean that this is not a private matter or a political matter but is a criminal matter?

reasoner2: Is it relevant that did not lie to cover up a crime -- but only lied to avoid embarrassing disclosures?

Fred Graham: This is the nub of the position of Clinton's critics. They say the Constitution requires the President to see to it that the laws are faithfully executed. If he violated that by committing perjury, how can he be excused because he did it to cover up adultery?

alphachap: Mr. Graham: I just read the Salon Magazine article on Henry Hyde. Do you think he's a hypocrite or what?!? I find it difficult to believe the Republican leadership seriously considers itself the keepers of morality in the US.

Fred Graham: The Republicans say they're not considering impeachment because of sex, but because the President may have committed high crimes and misdemeanors. There have been warnings that the Clinton side might undertake a "scorched earth" counterattack by leaking stories about opponents' sexual sins. If so, it is reprehensible.

reasoner2: How can lying about consensual sex be a high crime or high misdemeanor?

Fred Graham: That's the crux of this whole matter. Clinton's critics say you or I could be indicted for lying about sex under oath. If Clinton is excused because he's the President, they say it would undercut everyone's respect for the law -- and their willingness to tell the truth under oath.

Gudie: The Paula Jones suit was dismissed in April. Why were the perjury charges still relevant? Shouldn't Starr have dropped them then?

Fred Graham: The case law says a lie under oath is criminal if it was material at the time it was made. A later dismissal of the suit usually doesn't affect that. But in an impeachment, Congress can adopt looser rules, and find that those lies were not material, or perjurious.

Zikor: Do you believe it was a set up against the President? Why did Monica keep the dress and save the voice mail?

Fred Graham: She was obsessed with Clinton. And he clearly encouraged it. Read the report -- both of them did nutty, adolescent things. Clinton should be censured for being sophomoric, if nothing else.

Ka_Youa: Why is Clinton's temper just now coming out?

Fred Graham: The rumor around Washington has been that he blew up at underlings all the time, especially earlier in his presidency. He is said to have calmed down recently, but perhaps being confronted with a couple of lawyers brought it back.

AF62250A: Will the dress be an exhibit in the impeachment process in a Senate trial?

Fred Graham: Probably not. Clinton has admitted the affair, so the dress isn't needed. But he has also raised the "look, Ma, no hands!" excuse that is, that he never touched her breasts or other parts. Asking him about that in a Senate proceeding would be something to behold.

Timehost: And another question about evidence...

AF62250A: Will the video be used in a Senate trial?

Fred Graham: Absolutely. The most serious charge is lying before the grand jury.

Timehost: And here's a follow-up to your comment that Clinton has admitted the affair...

janithd: Has he really admitted the affair?

Fred Graham: That's why he is being criticized for hair-splitting. Theories about this may differ, but Hillary seems to think he admitted it.

b0st0nbill: Who pays his personal legal bills?

Fred Graham: Good question. He may make a bundle some day on his memoirs, but this man needs so many lawyers he won't have anything left for himself.

GirlPower19_98: Can he really survive?

Fred Graham: Absolutely. The Republicans are having a great time roughing him up now, but the polls say the public wants him to stay. He'll be cuffed around until after the November elections, and then they'll settle this.

Timehost: Thank you very much, Fred Graham, we've got to wrap things up now...any closing thoughts?

Fred Graham: This is a historic time. I covered Watergate, and there are many parallels. But fundamentally, Clinton's alleged wrongs are far less harmful to the country than Richard Nixon's. I am confident the outcome of this will reflect that.

Timehost: Thanks very much for being with us tonight. I hope that we'll be able to do this again soon.

WRITE TO US