WASHINGTON -- The "grounds for an impeachment" section of independent counsel Kenneth W. Starr's massive report to Congress reads much like a criminal prosecutor's opening trial statement: the argument to jurors about what the evidence will show.

He builds a suggested case for impeachment out of a pile of sometimes very specific testimony, a host of inferences about what opaque statements really meant, a few damaging pieces of physical evidence, and a wide array of debatable conclusions.

That section only sporadically uses the language of impeachment. In fact, only one of the 11 specific accusations Starr levels has the ring of an impeachment article to it: his argument that President Clinton was guilty of "abuse of his constitutional authority."

And even that article is largely a compilation of the 10 other specific claims of criminal code violations. That broader 11th item becomes a classic, catchall conspiracy assertion -- an alleged attempt by Clinton "to hinder, impede, and deflect possible inquiry by the Congress of the United States."

And those last words are a bit of a surprise, since the rest of Starr's impeachment proposal -- and many of his public statements on what his investigation was all about -- focused intently on allegations that Clinton sought not to hinder Congress but rather the lawyers for Paula Corbin Jones, Starr's investigators and the grand jury.

Those words, though, are clearly aimed at catching the attention of the only jurors who will count this time: the 435 members of the House, who may act something like grand jurors in leveling charges -- "impeachable offenses" -- and the 100 members of the Senate, who may act as jurors who will try Clinton.

But what Starr's "grounds for an impeachment" seem to invite is a legalistic defense by Clinton's lawyers and sympathetic Democrats in Congress.

The suggested 11 articles are the product of more than seven months of gathering evidence by a criminal grand jury, under the guidance of criminal prosecutors, in a process that ordinarily simply leads to a criminal indictment. The final product shows that.

By the time it passes through the political filter of the House, it may not read the same at all.

Although most of those who will be working on the specifics of possible articles of impeachment will be lawyers on the Judiciary Committee and its staff, their task -- if they decide to take it on -- will be to craft declarations of governmental wrongdoing, declarations that would read and sound like "high crimes and misdemeanors," in the Constitution's phrase on grounds for impeachment.

Starr's report says that the crimes he suggests Clinton committed -- he summarizes them as "perjury and acts that obstruct justice by any citizen" -- rise to a higher constitutional level when "such acts are committed by the president of the United States."

The report builds a case as criminal prosecutors usually do in compiling evidence for an indictment, bit by bit, detail by detail.

For example: in discussing Clinton's alleged lies under oath to Paula Jones' lawyers, the report pairs off the president's testimony -- "I could have given [Lewinsky] a gift, but I don't remember a specific gift" -- against a list of the gifts she handed over to prosecutors, including a large Rockettes blanket, plus a couple she did not turn over -- a pin of the New York skyline, a small box of cherry chocolates and a stuffed animal.

It goes on to chronicle, specifically, the many gifts Lewinsky gave Clinton -- far more than he had acknowledged in his testimony, and then sums up: "The evidence demonstrates that they exchanged numerous gifts of various kinds at many points over a lengthy period of time."

And, then, the conclusion Starr draws: "A truthful answer to the questions about gifts at the Jones deposition would have raised questions about the president's relationship with Ms. Lewinsky.

A truthful answer about the gifts to Ms. Lewinsky also would have raised the question of where they were. The President had a clear motive when testifying under oath to lie about the gifts." And that conclusion, together with many more like it, helps build a much broader Starr conclusion: "There is substantial and credible information that the president's lies about his relationship with Ms. Lewinsky were abundant and calculating."

The more sexually explicit details in the Starr report are not voluminous, and Starr notes that they have a bearing only on two of the 11 possible grounds for impeachment -- lying in the Jones case and to the grand jury about Lewinsky.

But those bits of evidence are punishingly direct; their inclusion comes with something of an apology from the special prosecutor.

Although the report's details make clear that the prosecutor and his staff had spent much of the past seven-plus months gathering those details, the report implies that Starr had no thought of disclosing them before Aug. 17, when Clinton testified under oath to the grand jury.

The report says: "If the president, in his grand jury appearance, had admitted the sexual activity recounted by Ms. Lewinsky and conceded that he had lied under oath in his civil deposition, these particular descriptions would be superfluous."

But, in the wake of further denials by Clinton on Aug. 17, Starr concludes, "the detail is critical" because it "provides credibility and corroboration to Ms. Lewinsky's testimony. The precise nature of the sexual activity only became relevant after the president interposed his semantic defense regarding oral sex on August 17, 1998."

Starr, in discussing Clinton's alleged lying about the nature of the sexual activity in the White House, lines up solidly with Lewinsky's highly graphic testimony.

The most specific lie Starr alleges about the president's grand jury testimony was that Clinton had falsely denied ever touching Lewinsky intimately. He offers excerpts from Clinton's testimony that point, but at no point in that recital is there an indication that the president was ever asked explicitly, "Did you?" or that he ever answered an explicit, "No."

The president's most significant answer is more opaque: "You are free to infer that my testimony is that I did not have sexual relations, as I understood this term to be defined." Starr's report treats that as a flat denial.

Only a few pages of Starr's recital of the potential "grounds for impeachment" are devoted to the broadest accusation he makes, about abuse of presidential power. Summarizing much of the evidence he had earlier recounted, the prosecutor concludes that those actions "have been inconsistent with the president's constitutional duty to faithfully execute the laws."

It is this section that brings out some of Starr's pique about the president's resistance to the Starr inquiry. He lists as a constitutional grievance the president's decision to try to shield some of the internal conversations about the Lewinsky scandal under a claim of executive privilege.

Although the courts have not treated that claim with disdain, but have ruled on it as if it were seriously advanced, Starr dismisses such claims as "patently groundless" and "frivolous," and as having contributed to the president's pattern of "unlawful" conduct.

Starr's 11 accusations

BTC Here is a summary of the 11 suggested "grounds for an impeachment" in the Starr report:

Four accusations of lying under oath Jan. 17 in Paula Corbin Jones' sexual misconduct lawsuit:

* False denials of a sexual relationship with Monica Lewinsky.

* Lying about not having been alone with Lewinsky and about gifts he gave her.

* Lying about his discussions with Lewinsky about testifying in the Jones case.

* Lying about discussions with adviser Vernon Jordan about Lewinsky's role in the Jones case.

One accusation of lying under oath Aug. 17 to the Starr grand jury:

* Lying about his sexual relationship with Lewinsky.

Three accusations of obstruction of justice in the Jones case:

* Reaching an agreement with Lewinsky to conceal his gifts to her that had been subpoenaed by Jones' lawyers.

* Making a deal with Lewinsky to lie in the Jones case about their sexual relationship, and using her false affidavit of denial in his testimony under oath in that case.

* Trying to get her a job in New York when she was faced with testifying in the Jones case.

One accusation of obstruction of justice in Starr's grand jury investigation:

* Refusing to testify for seven months and lying to White House aides so that they would convey the lies to the grand jury.

One accusation of witness tampering in the grand jury investigation:

* Attempting to influence the testimony of his personal secretary, Betty Currie.

One accusation of abuse of presidential power:

* Lying to the public and Congress, refusing six times to testify voluntarily before the grand jury, invoking executive privilege, lying Aug. 17 to the grand jury, to Congress and the public -- all to disrupt the grand jury and delay a possible congressional investigation of his misconduct.

Pub Date: 9/12/98