Time/Court TV Host:: Welcome, everyone, to our special TIME/COURT TV chat tonight about the release of the President's grand jury testimony. We're joined by COURT TV anchor Raymond Brown, and TIME senior writer Eric Pooley. Welcome to you both!

Eric Pooley: Good evening. (But, as the President might say, that depends upon how you define 'Good.')

Time/Court TV Host:: Good evening, everyone. Now for the first question....

IRIS__1998_99 asks: What makes him so special that he isn't impeached or forced to resign?

Eric Pooley: He may well be impeached before this is over, IRIS...But he won't resign. I think he'd barricade himself inside the Oval Office first. When did YOU decide he should go, IRIS?

Ray Brown: Today's development moved him further away from resignation or impeachment .

Curmudgeon__ asks: Why is this being handled in the media rather than the Congress? The Constitution doesn't say impeachment hearings need to be a contest in the media and polls.

Eric Pooley: Perhaps. I do think his performance - - far from the angry Clinton we'd been promised - - was incredibly polished and well-rehearsed. But the House Judiciary Committee seems to steaming toward preliminary impeachment hearings, at the very least. Nothing today changes that, in my view.

Ray Brown: The people who will vote on impeachment, i.e. congressmen will have their decisions strongly influenced by the polls and specifically the voters in November.

IBYODA asks: Do you think that this will have an effect on how other countries' leaders will look at Clinton?

Ray Brown: Of course -- any time a leader is vulnerable at home, other leaders take this into account when formulating strategy.

Eric Pooley: I agree with Ray Brown; the polls do matter. But what matters most to Congress isn't the nationwide poll numbers so much as the numbers in the 40-odd battleground districts. And most of them tend to be fairly conservative, with sentiment running higher against the President. Clinton got a huge ovation at the UN today, and gave a forceful speech on international terrorism. He is determined to prove that he can still lead.

Ray Brown: A qualified disagreement with Eric - Democrats targeted about 50 districts where blacks will/may be critical in November - important because blacks have strong support of Clinton.

A__Sweet_Escape asks: Do you think it is necessary to put the tape on TV and online?

Ray Brown: It is a reflection of Congress' true priorities that its FIRST debate was about tapes on TV and transcripts on the net.

Eric Pooley: I thought it was the right decision. A majority of Democrats also voted in favor of releasing these materials. Let the people see what the President had to say for himself.

Ray Brown: It was not reflective of a "deliberative" attitude that they released unread and unanalyzed material before deliberating about substantive matters.

Pussycat_13 asks: I understand that he may not be impeached but will be asked to pay for a portion of the legal expenses?

Eric Pooley: I don't think the President's testimony will change many minds, in Congress or among the public. And I think the impeachment hearings are inevitable at this point.

Ray Brown: I think he would take that deal in a minute, but I don't think it's on the table. The testimony won't change the minds of hard core pro- or anti-Clinton folks, but may shore up weak-kneed Democrats who were starting to lose heart.

thefunnyfarm_98 asks: What does his private life have to do with how well he can run this country?

Ray Brown: It's important to Republicans who feel Clinton has stolen their programs and have no other way to attack him.

Time/Court TV Host:: Eric has ducked out for just a moment, but he'll be right back. Another question, meantime....

APMom asks: Do you think that showing this grand jury testimony was an infringement of the basic concept of grand jury testimony being kept in the grand jury room?

Ray Brown: Whether we like it or not, Congress is the body that tells us what can be done with grand jury testimony. On the other hand, there's a good argument that releasing the testimony before the President has had time to respond to the Starr report is not entirely fair.

LaurenThalia asks: Today I heard a PoliSci professor discussing how this whole situation was going to affect the economy adversely for "obvious reasons." Well, those reasons aren't so obvious to me--why would this affect the economy?

Ray Brown: I'm not an economist, but Wall Street likes certainty and I suspect would respond adversely to a long drawn-out process - whatever the result.

Curmudgeon__ asks: Whenever or however Clinton leaves office, do you think he'll be vulnerable to criminal prosecution?

Ray Brown: Vulnerable, yes. If he escapes impeachment and conviction in the Senate, and if Starr can manage it, I think he'll be indicted after he leaves office.

Someone_222 asks: What's this "intent" business that Clinton brought up--he didn't have the intent to arouse or gratify when he was fondling Lewinsky? He didn't have the "intent" to arouse or gratify--what does this mean from a legal perspective?

Ray Brown: Every crime has two elements (1) an act (2) a certain state of mind -- and this ain't parsing.

lbtk21 asks: Assuming the impeachment process begins and proceeds, how long do you think it would be before they began open Senate hearings?

Eric Pooley: First, the House has to vote in favor of specific articles of impeachment. That's by no means as certain as holding House impeachment hearings themselves. I think we're looking at another six months, barring some deal.

Ray Brown: If there's a trial in the Senate, it would probably be in the spring or summer of '99. but no one really knows.

Eric Pooley: Various Washington "wise men" are working on a deal that would include censure, monetary sanctions against Clinton, his admission of wrongdoing, etc. But there's no sign that Starr and GOP leaders will sign on.

Suewisc asks: How, if any, are the proceedings going for Travelgate, Filegate, etc.? Where is the grand jury's investigation to date?

Ray Brown: Starr has said he has still to file his final reports on Whitewater and other matters he's investigating.

Eric Pooley: Starr's report held open the possibility of sending a second report on the other matters. But if he had found impeachable offenses, I think we would have heard about them.

Ray Brown: He will file some report with the circuit court for the District of Columbia, which oversees his work.

Eric Pooley: Right. But the real question is whether he has enough to send another referral to Congress. And that seems unlikely.

telecaster68 asks: Can you draw a distinction between what would be a lawful resolution of this situation and what would be a "just" resolution?

Ray Brown: According to former President Ford, whatever the Congress decides is both lawful and just by definition -- I dissent of course.

Eric Pooley: The 'just' resolution seems elusive, at least to me. Clearly, Clinton lied. But do the lies rise to the standards of high crimes and misdemeanors--by which the framers meant crimes against the state and the society? That's a tricky one, to be answered by the souls and consciences of each congressman and senator.

barefoot_lass asks: If this comes down to a "he said - she said" debate...who is more credible?

Ray Brown: Eric's earlier answer assumes Congressmen have souls.

Eric Pooley: Lewinsky's testimony is buttressed by White House entry logs, phone records, and a wealth of other details amassed by Starr. But those records don't speak to questions of who fondled what when. Still, Lewinsky strikes me as more credible in this he said/she said debate.

Ray Brown: It depends on who "she" is. If it's Betty Currie, the president loses, if it's Monica it's even-steven.

Eric Pooley: Impeachment hearings would be both spectacle and wearisome re-run. We'd see Monica, Currie, Jordan, Starr, all giving testimony we've heard before. And the white House is hoping that scandal fatigue will carry the day for them. They have little else to count on.

jenpatriot asks: Where is this grand jury? Who are they?

Ray Brown: The grand jury is sitting in the District of Columbia, it consists of 23 citizens chosen somewhat at random from the District. Normally a grand jury sits for 18 months, but such terms can be extended easily.

Eric Pooley: These folks must have extremely patient employers...

Ray Brown: The normal function of a grand jury is to determine if there is "some evidence" to believe that X committed a crime and to indict where appropriate; however, there is some constitutional thinking that a sitting President can't be indicted, only impeached and tried in the Senate.

Eric Pooley: Except that you can't indict a President, so this has been one strange grand jury from the start

Ray Brown: Re: indicting a president - Eric expresses what is probably a majority view, but by no means certain.

Eric Pooley: I defer to Ray's expertise. But it seems to be Starr's view that he can't indict. At least until Clinton leaves office. And whether Starr would waive such an indictment is one of the issues blocking any deal.

Ray Brown: There are rumored to be several in Starr's office who hold a contrary view - Eric and Leon Jaworski (Nixon's prosecutor) and myself think that he can not.

PSAJONES asks: Do you think that Paula Jones, if her case ever goes to trial, would have a better chance of winning her case in light of what we now know?

Eric Pooley: I think not. The huge holes in her case remain.

Ray Brown: Obviously better because the President's testimony would obviously be a disaster coping with both Jones and Lewinsky issues.

Eric Pooley: Jones still has to prove that whatever happened between her and Clinton undermined her career. And her evidence was very, very weak.

Ray Brown: I agree, but it doesn't help for Clinton to carry two buckets instead of one.

Eric Pooley: She may get another hearing as a result of this, and it would be another millstone for Clinton, as Ray says. But I still see Jones as a sideshow, at this point.

Ray Brown: It's a sideshow unless the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals reverses Judge Wright and send the matter back for trial.

Lisa_1974 asks: If he stays, in your opinion, what will the next 2 years be like? Do you think that our country will be at a standstill?

Ray Brown: He's obviously weakened, but though I disagree with many of his policies, he is clearly one of the most skilled politicians of recent times - never sell him short.

Eric Pooley: Clinton's ability to advance a legislative agenda has been destroyed. But he has spent the last several years going over the heads of Congress anyway. He is good at it. If he cared more about his agenda than himself, he would resign. Al Gore could do a better job as steward of Clintonism than Clinton can.

MaryKat23 asks: I haven't seen the video. I did read the Starr report. Should I see video?

Ray Brown: On the last point - Gore is a stiff, Clinton was key to the Democratic Leadership Council and the resurrection of a dying Democratic party.

Eric Pooley: The video is worth seeing if only to see vintage Clinton in action. I doubt it'll change your mind, though, one way or the other.

Ray Brown: Gore and Gephardt are bit players by comparison, and can't govern or campaign in the same league (remember I don't particularly like his policies).

Eric Pooley: I hold Gore in somewhat higher esteem than Ray does. But he is a stiff.

Ray Brown: See the video - it's the one piece of "evidence" most Americans can view and it is the best statement of Clinton's position.

Eric Pooley: I'd love to hear from anyone who saw the video and felt it changed their opinion about this mess.

telecaster68 asks: Many people who despise Clinton's conduct talk of "law and order." But when Clinton uses legalisms (law, that is) in his defense, they accuse him of being slippery. Isn't there a disjunction in that attitude?

Eric Pooley: It reinforced something Sen. Bob Kerrey said a few years back. Clinton is "an unusually good liar." But perhaps not good enough.

Ray Brown: Subtle and insightful point. Telecast's point, that is.

Eric Pooley: Re: Telecast, their complaint is that Clinton is parsing legal definitions to evade the truth.

Ray Brown: But he can "parse" as long as he doesn't commit perjury.

Eric Pooley: What they leave unspoken is that his skill at doing so astonishes and sometimes stymies them.

Ray Brown: His greatest strength today was explaining WHY he played it so "close to the vest" in his Jones deposition.

BRaftery asks: Can a man now walk into a criminal court, accused of solicitation of prostitution, and claim it wasn't sexual relations because it was oral sex only?

Ray Brown: My girlfriend has told me not to think I can adopt the Clinton definition. Nuff said?

Eric Pooley: Women across America have made that clear.

Ray Brown: Glad I'm not alone.

Eric Pooley: In time, judges and juries might, as well. Because Clinton's legalisms were based on a narrow definition of sex in the Jones case, it wouldn't apply elsewhere.

Ray Brown: The real question is can he make it stick HERE.

Eric Pooley: Precisely.

Marauder_76 asks: What do you think of federalist paper 65 written by Alexander Hamilton that states that impeachment is for removing an elected official who is no longer fit for office?

Eric Pooley: Want to offer a prediction, Ray? Again, the jury (Senate) will have to decide whether this rises to that level, Marauder.

Ray Brown: Provided the Democrats lose 10 seats or fewer in November, Clinton escapes conviction, but we chat from now 'till Sept. 99. Where's your prediction, Eric? From the time you're taking, I assume you've absorbed Clinton's parsing lessons.

Eric Pooley: I think he'll survive, given much the same electoral math you describe, Ray. But we'll be talking and typing about this for months and months to come.

Time/Court TV Host:: Ray had to go get ready to go on air, but Eric will be here for a few more questions.

Grute22 asks: Mr. Pooley....I feel that every time Clinton is speaking his words are not sincere and I often feel he is lying...can we the American people ever trust him again???

Eric Pooley: Surprising thing is, people who DON'T trust him often give him high marks for job performance. I was struck by what a fine speech he gave at the UN today, even as his lies 'n videotape were on the air. But I respect those who say he has forfeited the right to be president. And he has done grave damage to the country. Anyone with children must feel that way. I know I do.

__IMMORTAL__ asks: I would like to know how this affects Chelsea, Clinton's daughter. Where is the sympathy for her?

Eric Pooley: I feel enormous sympathy for her. I think the media has underplayed that angle (maybe the only one) because it is such a squeamish subject. But here's a young woman whose parents used to drill her at the dinner table. 'People will say things about your dad. They will be lies from his enemies.' This since she was 6 years old! And now she knows that much of it was true.

Eric Pooley: It has to be horribly painful for her.

vwfarf asks: Does Al Gore have a chance in the next election? Is his association with Clinton going to kill his political career?

Eric Pooley: Depends who runs against him. I think he wins the nomination, then loses. He has so much money and support, he's still tough to beat in the primaries.

Time/Court TV Host:: Last question.

charlieks asks: Do you think the Republicans will try to drag this out by going for impeachment? It sounds as if it will take quite while to go through those proceedings to help their party in elections for the presidency?

Eric Pooley: No question. They will drag this out. The see a chance to lock in a Republican majority into the next century.

Time/Court TV Host:: Eric, thanks for taking the time to chat with us this evening.

Eric Pooley: Thank you. Of course, that depends on what I mean by 'you" (sorry, too much Clinton-watching.)

Time/Court TV Host:: And thanks to Ray Brown as well for weighing in on the latest in the ongoing crisis.

Eric Pooley: Good night, folks.

WRITE TO US