HOW NOT TO IMPEACH A PRESIDENT IN 1998

More than three weeks ago, the chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, Henry Hyde, sent a list of 81 questions to President Clinton asking for yes-or-no responses. The questions, the chairman indicated, would help speed up the impeachment hearing process -- something the president clearly would like to see come to a close as soon as possible.

Even so, it seemed more than a bit unusual at the time that there would be any real expectation that Clinton would even respond to the questions, much less answer them in such a way that the Judiciary Committee might find any use for the results.

But the hearing process, if anything, has been bizarre. It has been driven by counting noses to see how many votes might be mustered in the House -- or, later, in the Senate -- for a variety of outcomes ranging from impeachment to censure. Little thought, it sometimes seems, is being given to facts, the law or justice.

As this cumbersome machine continues to roll forward, along comes the president's response to Hyde's 81 questions. If it was a surprise that he bothered to answer them, it was certainly no surprise that his answers provided no more information than was already available.

But what did Chairman Hyde expect? That the president would provide some sort of confession to high crimes and misdemeanors? That certainly would have made short work of the impeachment hearings and, no doubt, would have garnered the needed Democratic votes to oust the presidents. (See? More nose counting.)

The president's defense in the wake of the Lewinsky tapes, the Starr report and the release of grand-jury testimony, has been simple, and it has been consistent: I did something really dumb, but I didn't lie, and I didn't commit perjury.

It can be supposed that Chairman Hyde thought the president would, in responding to the 81 questions, would admit that he commited a crime. Not exactly a reasonable expectation.

Now the president's own lawyers have accepted an invitation to mount a defense of sorts before the Judiciary Committee. This comes against the backdrop of Thursday's announcement from Speaker-designate Bob Livingston that he hopes the impeachment process wraps up by year's end.

So much for allowing justice to take its course.

The Judiciary Committee has an opportunity to ferret out information to substantiate an impeachment resolution. The questions is: Does the committee have to stomach to do its job, or is it merely putting on a political show for the folks back home?