JIM LEHRER: Do you agree?

STUART TAYLOR: Yes. Of course, we haven’t seen the articles yet. The indictment hasn’t quite been – but we know the rough outlines of what it will be – perjury here, perjury there, grand jury – obstruction of justice, which really is in this case – boils down largely to witness tampering with Betty Currie and Monica Lewinsky. And obviously, the censure option is coming more and more into focus in this committee. We’ve seen reports that the chairman will allow a vote on censure after a vote on impeachment to give those who favor that an option. I think one thing that may be very difficult – lots of people say let’s just censure him – is okay, what is the censure motion going to say, and how do you get all the people who want to say he lied, he lied, he’s a criminal, prosecute him, together with all the people who want to say he was a naughty boy, and we don’t want to really look at it anymore, plus the people who say a fine would be an unconstitutional bill of attainder and those who like Governor Weld of Massachusetts – the former governor – say, oh, no, you can do that if he agrees to it – I think that’s going to be very tricky business.

JIM LEHRER: What about the audience beyond the committee, do – I mean, I’m talking here again about when it goes to the floor. Assuming that everything remains just the way it was before this all began, which is there’s going to be an article – at least one article of impeachment will be voted out – there may then be a vote on censure -probably not favorably – out of this committee, but it will go to the floor. How do you think what was said this morning might affect that?

TOM OLIPHANT: Well, the fact that censure keeps creeping into this more and more I think is at least a hint that it has more of a chance of coming up on the floor than it did until the last day or so. If it does, there are two theories about what’s going to happen. One is Tom Delay’s, who is the Republican whip, that if you structure the vote correctly or don’t permit its consideration on the floor, the President is going to be impeached on one count of probably perjury by a margin of five to ten votes. The other theory propounded by Rep. Peter King of New York, which is –

JIM LEHRER: A Republican.

TOM OLIPHANT: A Republican – is that if you allow this lame-duck House to vote on a resolution of censure, number one, it will pass, and number two, the article of impeachment will then be defeated also by five to ten votes.

JIM LEHRER: But you’d have to vote on censure first?

TOM OLIPHANT: That’s correct.

JIM LEHRER: Now, you see it that way too, Stuart?

STUART TAYLOR: Well, my guess is the Republican leadership will want an arraignment so that the censure vote comes after the impeachment vote. I think they want as a matter of fairness – it would look very bad if they said, no, no, nobody can get a vote on censure but as a matter of tactics, I think they want to hold people’s feet to the fire to face the impeachment up or down issue before they give them the lollipop.

JIM LEHRER: But if they vote article of impeachment, isn’t censure then irrelevant?

STUART TAYLOR: Of course, it is, but the idea is if an article of impeachment is voted down, then presumably censure would be –

JIM LEHRER: I see.

STUART TAYLOR: — appropriate. The Democrats will want to have the opportunity to choose that first, and that could lead to parliamentary wrangling.

JIM LEHRER: Now, Margaret, Stuart and Tom have both declared this thing essentially over at this point, and I’ve just assisted them in that, but we still have this afternoon, when we come back, Charles Ruff. That is a climactic moment for the president at least and the defense. He’s the president’s counsel. Tell us about Charles Ruff and what he’s likely to do.

MARGARET WARNER: Well, he’s the fourth White House counsel this president has had. He came in about 18 months ago and he’s very much known for being – in his past he’s combined, first of all, prosecutorial experience like many people in this case – Watergate prosecutorial experience – with kind of blue chip Washington law firm experience with a lot of high-priced clients. He’s also got a history of getting Democrats out of trouble. He represented John Glenn in the Keating Five Savings & Loan scandal case. He represented Chuck Robb when Robb was questioned whether he was involved in tapping an opponent. In the White House, he was at least blamed by the political side, proving the architect of the strategy of playing very much hardball with Ken Starr, saying nothing publicly. So he’s not a known quantity to, you know, the television audience, or I would say most people on the committee.

JIM LEHRER: He’s done very little television.

MARGARET WARNER: Very little television.

JIM LEHRER: And given – granted very few interviews not only in this carnation but in previous ones, am I right about that?

TOM OLIPHANT: That’s true, yes.

MARGARET WARNER: One little personal note people will notice, he’s in a wheelchair. I was interested to read recently he was not – this is not a birth defect or something that happened at birth. He went to teach law in Africa after graduating from Columbia Law School and he got some sort of mysterious polio-like disease, and he’s been in a wheelchair ever since.

JIM LEHRER: Well, we’ll talk about him some more when we come back. We’ll be back at 1:15 Eastern Time for the afternoon session of the House Judiciary Committee. We expect to hear – as we just said – the conclusion of the president’s legal defense presented by Mr. Ruff. I’m Jim Lehrer. Thank you and good afternoon.

The post NewsHour Impeachment Coverage: Analysis and Commentary – The President’s Defense appeared first on Stuart Taylor, Jr..