GOP Seeks to Make It Hard for Clinton to Claim Victory

WASHINGTON — Having set the Senate impeachment trial on course to a conclusion that almost certainly will leave President Clinton in office, Republicans are now struggling to find a way to end the proceeding in a way that would make it difficult for Clinton to claim victory and exoneration.

Republicans are wrestling with whether they can approve a “finding of fact” resolution that declares the facts of the case against Clinton proved without removing him from office--a middle ground that would embrace the case brought by House Republican prosecutors even though the Senate lacks enough votes to oust Clinton because of it.

But the idea has met with fierce opposition from the White House and Democrats, who question its constitutionality. And it also has opened divisions among Republicans. Some conservatives have opposed the approach as a fig leaf that would give fence-sitting Republicans an excuse for voting against the articles of impeachment.

“I’m skeptical,” said Sen. Phil Gramm (R-Texas). “We have a constitutional requirement to vote guilty or not guilty on the articles of impeachment. Most of these other proposals are about covering yourself politically, and I don’t need cover.”

“It’s not a done deal,” said Sen. Robert F. Bennett (R-Utah).

Exactly how the final stages of the trial will shape up remains one of the biggest questions in the wake of the Senate’s party-line vote Thursday to establish procedures for deposing witnesses and voting on the articles of impeachment as early as Feb. 12.

Based on that decision, the Senate on Friday delivered subpoenas to Monica S. Lewinsky, whose illicit relationship with Clinton gave rise to the scandal, Clinton confidant Vernon E. Jordon Jr. and White House aide Sidney Blumenthal. The three will be questioned next week for no more than eight hours each, with one senator from each party sitting in on the testimony.

Parties List Senators’ Names

Republicans on Friday announced that they had chosen Sen. Mike DeWine of Ohio to be at Lewinsky’s deposition, which will begin at 6 a.m. PST Monday at Washington’s Mayflower Hotel. Sen. Fred Thompson of Tennessee will be at Jordan’s deposition, which will be in the Capitol on Tuesday. Sen. Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania will sit in on Blumenthal’s deposition in the Capitol on Wednesday.

Democrats named Sens. Patrick J. Leahy of Vermont, John Edwards of North Carolina and Christopher J. Dodd of Connecticut to take turns sitting in on the depositions, with Leahy leading off with Lewinsky.

With the Senate trial in recess Friday, the three House Republican prosecutors who will conduct the depositions--Reps. Asa Hutchinson of Arkansas, Ed Bryant of Tennessee and James E. Rogan of Glendale--were back in their home districts, preparing questions, reviewing transcripts and brushing up on the factual disputes that they will attempt to explore.

And scandal-weary senators enjoyed their first day all week without trial responsibilities forcing them to spend long hours in silence on the Senate floor.

“I’m really glad to be anywhere but where I’ve been for the last three weeks, tethered to the floor of the United States Senate,” Majority Leader Trent Lott (R-Miss.) said in a speech to the U.S. Conference of Mayors in Washington.

The effort to bring a “finding of fact” resolution to a vote was one of the sticking points between Republicans and Democrats on Thursday when efforts to reach bipartisan agreement on trial procedures collapsed. Democrats wanted the fact-finding resolution to be ruled out. Republicans insisted on keeping the option open. Republicans won, ramming through procedural ground rules on a party-line vote.

Lott this week appointed a small working group of Republican senators to explore the possibility of bringing a “finding of fact” resolution to the Senate before the final vote on the two articles of impeachment against Clinton. The group is to present its recommendations to a GOP caucus meeting Tuesday.

The idea represents an effort to grapple with the concern that, while many think Clinton is guilty of lying under oath about and trying to cover up his relationship with Lewinsky, there are not enough senators who think his misconduct merits his removal from office.

Democrats Propose Censure Resolution

Although the Senate this week voted against dismissing the case, the 56-44 vote showed that, barring some spectacular new revelations, the final roll calls on the impeachment articles will not produce the 67 votes needed to convict Clinton and remove him from office.

Many Democrats have responded to that prospect by proposing that the Senate, after the articles fail, vote on a censure resolution that strongly condemns Clinton’s behavior.

But Republican proponents of the “finding of fact” approach are going a step further, calling for a resolution that declares the facts of the House Republicans’ case against Clinton to be proved.

The vote likely would come on a nonbinding “sense of the Senate” resolution that could be approved by a majority vote of 51 senators.

Democrats and the White House have argued vociferously against the idea, raising questions about its constitutionality.

“We should not be able to do by majority vote what the Constitution contemplates by a two-thirds vote,” said Sen. Richard H. Bryan (D-Nev.).

The constitutionality of this approach is in dispute because most legal scholars agree that the Senate cannot vote to find the president guilty but then vote not to remove him from office. On the other hand, most agree that the Senate can express its view of his behavior.

The key question is whether such an expression would amount to a finding of guilt if, as part of the impeachment trial, the Senate were to say that the president did what the House articles allege and that it disapproves.

The Senate GOP working group on the issue is trying to skirt the constitutional problems by avoiding referring to guilt or the specific charges, said Bob Stevenson, a spokesman for Sen. Pete V. Domenici (R-N.M.), co-chairman of the group. Instead, Stevenson said, a draft proposal asserts that the facts of the House Republicans’ case have been proved, without drawing specific conclusions.

Whether this idea comes to a vote is still uncertain because even some Republicans--particularly in the party’s right wing--have expressed reservations about the approach.

Times staff writer David G. Savage contributed to this story.

* RENO REJECTS INQUIRY: Atty. Gen. Janet Reno rejected a special probe of former White House aide Harold M. Ickes. A9