CLINTON MAY YET ESCAPE CENSURE; SENATORS SEEK SOME FORM OF PUNISHMENT.

Byline: David Hess Knight Ridder Newspapers

History may not deem him pure as an infant's heart, but President Clinton could end up dodging the type of formal reproach even he once invited - an official congressional censure.

Already, a Republican-led effort to establish a ``finding of facts'' that Clinton was guilty - though not impeachable - has collapsed. Now, with his impeachment acquittal all but certain, some senators in both parties are searching for a way to censure the president not simply for misbehavior but also for flouting the law.

That sounds easy. Even Clinton has admitted he carried on an ``inappropriate'' relationship with Monica Lewinsky and that he tried to conceal it. But senators remain divided over the wording of a censure resolution, as well as the constitutionality, wisdom and political advantage that may be gained from such an effort.

Though the 67 votes needed to convict and oust Clinton appear out of reach, his standing as the only president to be impeached in the 20th century and the second in the nation's history will certainly color his legacy.

Indeed, in a last-ditch effort to avoid impeachment in December, he stepped up to the microphones in the White House Rose Garden and unsuccessfully solicited Congress to censure him.

But the two articles of impeachment that passed were the result of contentious, party-line votes. And many in Congress believe Clinton needs to be officially reprimanded, preferably in a bipartisan way. His impeachment notwithstanding, advocates of censure fear that without a formal expression of disapproval, their sense of outrage over his behavior will never be properly expressed.

Censure options

Sen. Byron Dorgan, D-N.D., who is working with a core group of Democrats to formulate a censure measure, confidently predicts that the Senate - after the final votes on the articles of impeachment are cast - will upbraid Clinton. ``It'll be awfully hard for senators to vote against censure, when that's all that's left,'' he said.

But Sens. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif.; Daniel Patrick Moynihan, D-N.Y.; and Robert Bennett, R-Utah, are struggling over multiple drafts of censure resolutions that still haven't found the words to attract a solid, bipartisan majority for eventual adoption.

And a spokesman for Majority Leader Trent Lott, R-Miss., said his boss has ``serious reservations'' about a move to censure Clinton on constitutional, policy and political grounds.

``Sen. Lott has questioned the constitutional merit of censure,'' said John Czwartacki. ``He also thinks it is not appropriate for the Senate to be in the business of censuring a president for any disagreement that Congress has with him. Once that precedent is set, where does it end?''

What's more, Czwartacki said, Lott sees censure as a potentially ``crass political exercise that could be expunged at a later date.''

All those arguments have been mounted by other Republicans, as well as several Democrats. Sen. Phil Gramm, R-Texas, for one, has indicated he is prepared to filibuster any post-trial effort to win approval for a censure resolution.

Sen. Tom Harkin, D-Iowa, has also raised those objections to censure. But he indicated Friday he could be persuaded to change his mind if a resolution could be drafted that clearly avoided any suggestion that Clinton is guilty of a crime.

That, of course, is the rub. Republicans who say they are not averse to censuring the president are adamant about denouncing him as a probable lawbreaker.

Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison, R-Texas, said Friday that any censure measure must deliver ``a clear message that our rule of law is intact and that American standards of perjury and obstruction of justice are not weakened or threatened.''

Most Democrats are insisting that Clinton not be found ``guilty,'' even informally, in the language of censure, as a cheap and extraconstitutional substitute for the failure to convict and unseat him.

Even Sen. Joseph Lieberman, D-Conn., among the first of the president's party to denounce him for his liaison with Lewinsky, draws the line at a finding of guilt.

Whether there is a semantic middle ground in this debate is uncertain. What is certain is that unless senators in both parties can find common language that will attract 60 filibuster-proof votes, Clinton stands a chance of emerging from the impeachment ordeal with no other taint on his record than the House's party-line vote to impeach him.

Though the fate of censure remained in doubt, senators on Friday were accumulating votes in favor of making their trial deliberations public. Any move to open up their debate requires a two-thirds majority - 67 votes. Supporters said Friday they already knew of 60 favorable votes.

Searching for dignity

The GOP majority beat back earlier efforts to open up debate over trial motions. But on Friday several Republicans were lining up behind an open and public debate.

``I am very optimistic that we will be able to win this and have an ending that fits the dignity of the Senate,'' said Hutchison, one of the GOP leaders in the effort.

Deliberations were not public in the impeachment trial of President Andrew Johnson in 1868, the rules of which have served as something of a model in these proceeding. And the Senate kept no record of those proceedings - a decision that Hutchison said ``left us with a lot of voids, a lot of voids in the record, voids in the precedent.''