The Daily Republican Newspaper Header
Datebar
 
National Daily Republican News Archive

July 28, 1998

Lindsey, Lewinsky Developments
Press Clinton Further on Testifying

By GLENN R. SIMPSON and DAVID S. CLOUD

WASHINGTON - As a federal appeals court pushed Bruce Lindsey toward testifying before a grand jury, and Monica Lewinsky edged closer to jumping in as well, President Clinton Monday found that he soon may be the last major figure to resist testifying in Kenneth Starr's investigation.

The developments were graphic indicators of how difficult it will be, politically and legally, for the president to avoid Mr. Starr's demand that he answer questions under oath. They also were reminders of the perils Mr. Clinton faces now that Mr. Starr is succeeding in amassing testimony and evidence.

In a private interview Monday, Ms. Lewinsky told Mr. Starr's investigators that she had a sexual relationship with the president, according to people on each side of the case, and is on the verge of an agreement to provide testimony. But surprisingly enough, if Mr. Clinton does choose to testify, the question he least wants to answer probably isn't the one that most occupies the public: Did he have an affair with Ms. Lewinsky?

Being asked about an alleged extramarital affair before a grand jury obviously would make the president -- or anyone else -- uncomfortable. But the bigger dangers may lie on related matters where credible witnesses or other evidence could contradict Mr. Clinton.

The president's case for resisting the call to testify grew weaker Monday, when the U.S. Court of Appeals here ordered Mr. Lindsey to testify before Mr. Starr's grand jury, knocking down his assertion of lawyer-client privilege. Mr. Starr has now won a string of court victories against uncooperative witnesses. The decision could also mean other White House lawyers will be called to testify -- yet another hazard for Mr. Clinton.

Ms. Lewinsky had her first face-to-face meeting with Mr. Starr's staff since early this year, a strong sign she is close to a deal under which she testifies about her relationship with Mr. Clinton in exchange for leniency. The meeting was in New York City and apparently was conducted under "queen for a day" rules that allow potential witnesses to give prosecutors a preview of their testimony without placing themselves in jeopardy.

As of Monday night, it still wasn't clear whether Mr. Clinton would submit to an interrogation under oath by Mr. Starr, despite a subpoena commanding him to do so. "We are working with the Office of Independent Counsel as we have in the past to devise a way for the president to provide information for the OIC's investigation consistent with his constitutional role and responsibilities," the president's private lawyer, David Kendall, said in a statement.

The White House is considering many issues, people familiar with the matter say, including the constitutional question of whether a grand jury is the appropriate forum for a president to be questioned about his conduct. But by necessity, a big part of the consideration comes down to nuts-and-bolts criminal-defense issues.

Ms. Lewinsky, if and when she testifies before Mr. Starr, isn't likely to have great credibility on the question of whether she had an affair with the president, now that she has changed her story. There probably are no other witnesses to any intimate contacts. The question is likely to be a classic he-said, she-said matter.

The more real danger is that Mr. Clinton will give testimony on related matters that contradicts physical evidence or other, more credible witnesses. That wouldn't concern whether Mr. Clinton had an affair, but rather whether he was involved in improper efforts to influence the testimony of Ms. Lewinsky or otherwise undermine the Paula Jones sexual-harassment case.

The grand jury has heard from Vernon Jordan, the president's confidant, and Betty Currie, the president's secretary. Both had extensive dealings with Ms. Lewinsky and the president, some of them concerning Ms. Lewinsky's role in the Jones case, and both have been described as giving extensive, detailed testimony about Mr. Clinton's role in these matters. In his deposition for the Paula Jones case, Mr. Clinton portrayed himself as only vaguely aware of efforts to help the former White House intern. In the wake of Monday's ruling, Mr. Clinton also may have to worry about what Mr. Lindsey says, although his loyalty to the president has seemed unshakable.

"A government attorney may not invoke the attorney-client privilege in response to grand-jury questions seeking information relating to the possible commission of a federal crime," the three judges ruled. It was Mr. Lindsey who first informed the president that Ms. Jones's lawyers had subpoenaed Ms. Lewinsky to ask about an alleged affair. It isn't clear whether Mr. Lindsey will appeal his case to the full Appeals Court or possibly to the Supreme Court. One possibility: The independent counsel will seek to force Mr. Lindsey's testimony before any appeal can be heard.

For Mr. Clinton, problems could lie in how his testimony stacks up against both his own previous sworn statement and detailed accounts given by others. Specifically, he has to worry about such matters as his assertion that he didn't cause a meeting to be set up between Mr. Jordan and Ms. Lewinsky. "What my memory of this is, if you're asking me did I set the meeting up, I do not believe that I did," he testified in the Jones case. "I think that [Ms. Lewinsky] and Betty were close, and I think Betty did it." Conceivably, that is open to contradiction by Mr. Jordan, Ms. Currie and Ms. Lewinsky.

While it won't be unassailable, testimony by Ms. Lewinsky on matters not directly related to sex is another potential problem area. With Ms. Lewinsky's meeting with Mr. Starr Monday, it seemed likely she would be appearing before the grand jury eventually and could talk about whether Mr. Clinton ever encouraged her to lie.

Beyond the particular contours of the Lewinsky investigation are other basic downsides to an appearance. Defense lawyers almost always advise their clients against testifying if their clients are targeted by a prosecutor, says Jack King of the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, because "in all likelihood his statements will be used against him by the government." While Mr. Clinton hasn't been informed by Mr. Starr that he is a target, "for all intents and purposes he is the target of this investigation whether he got a target letter or not."

Ordinarily, citizens can invoke the Fifth Amendment to avoid questioning by a prosecutor. Most people think Mr. Clinton can't do that for political reasons, but the president could refuse to testify on loftier grounds. Some in the White House and elsewhere believe the only body empowered under the Constitution to question the president's conduct is the House of Representatives. Many scholars believe presidents can't be indicted and thus, by extension, shouldn't be forced to testify potentially against themselves.

"I think there's a strong constitutional case to be made that a subpoena can't be enforced against the president, but it is an open question in constitutional law," said Paul Rothstein of Georgetown University Law Center.

Whether the president testifies may come down to considerations of law and defense strategy rather than the finer points of the negotiations between Mr. Kendall and prosecutors. The two sides aren't far from an agreement. Mr. Kendall wants to sit in on Mr. Clinton's testimony, have it take place at the White House, know in advance what it will concern and have limits on its scope. While these would be extraordinary demands in a regular criminal case, Mr. Starr has agreed to most of them on previous occasions.

The only truly large concession Mr. Starr would be making, lawyers familiar with the case say, would be to agree to limits on scope. He might do so to force an agreement with Mr. Kendall and bring Mr. Clinton to the witness stand whether he wants to be there or not.

Copyright © 1998 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved.

Comment

Click Here For Free Subscription!
Archive Search:


 

 

Netscape Navigator, America Online 3.0, or Microsoft Internet Explorer
provide the best viewing of The Daily Republican Newspaper.

Copyright © 1991-1998 JAVA, HTML Text Graphics by The Daily Republican Newspaper.
All rights reserved.