Clinton Mum On Intern Tip News Report Says He Warned Lewinsky About Legal Probe
President Clinton refused to explain Thursday why he warned former White House intern Monica Lewinsky that she was likely to be called to testify about her relationship with him.
Arguing that it would be “against the law,” Clinton sternly refused to answer any questions raised by the newly disclosed contents of his deposition in the sexual harassment case filed against him by Paula Jones.
Clinton’s refusal came on the same day that Vernon Jordan, his friend and trusted adviser, reappeared before a federal grand jury trying to determine why Jordan lined up a job offer and the services of a Washington attorney for Lewinsky.
Jordan acknowledged after testifying that he had kept Clinton apprised, in December and January, of his efforts to assist Lewinsky. Jordan said that his actions were not part of a quid pro quo to encourage Lewinsky to lie under oath about her dealings with the president.
“I kept the president informed about my activities,” Jordan said, adding, “I did not in any way tell her, encourage her to lie.”
The testimony of both Jordan and Lewinsky is probably pivotal in determining whether independent counsel Kenneth Starr will bring perjury or obstruction of justice charges that would threaten Clinton’s presidency. Whether Clinton’s warning to Lewinsky was an attempt to influence her testimony also could be central to an obstruction of justice charge. Jordan, whose once rock-solid closeness with Clinton has been tested by the controversy, quoted Scripture as he left the federal courthouse.
“I feel about like Paul wrote in the letter: I have fought a good fight. I have finished my course. I have kept the faith - and we’ll see what time will tell us.”
One floor down from where Jordan testified, lawyers for Lewinsky and Starr squared off before a federal judge who is overseeing the case. Lewinsky’s lawyers contended that their client has a valid deal with Starr, in which she would testify in exchange for a grant of immunity from prosecution. Starr has argued that there is no deal.
As of late Thursday night, none of the lawyers involved was saying whether Chief District Court Judge Norma Holloway Johnson had ruled on the dispute.
The day’s events unfolded against the backdrop of a published report that provided extensive details of Clinton’s Jan. 17 sworn testimony in the Jones case about his behavior with Lewinsky and five other alleged paramours.
Clinton and lawyers representing virtually every major party with access to his testimony - which had been sealed by a federal judge - denied being the source of the report by the Washington Post.
The Post reported that Clinton alerted Lewinsky that she might be among the many women he knew who were being summoned to testify by Jones’ lawyers. Clinton also testified that Bruce Lindsey, the president’s confidant and deputy White House counsel, learned that Lewinsky was on a witness list in the Jones case.
Presidential aides have said over the last several weeks that Clinton is constrained from publicly saying any more than he has because any comments he makes could deepen his jeopardy with the independent counsel. They did not dispute the Post version of Clinton’s testimony.
Still, the questions surrounding whether Clinton directly or through others sought to shape Lewinsky’s testimony are central to determining whether crimes occurred.
Clinton had an angry response Thursday when asked by reporters to comment on the details of the published account of his testimony.
“The court has made it absolutely clear (that) it is illegal to leak and discuss it (the testimony),” Clinton said at the outset of a meeting to discuss Medicare policy. “Somebody in this case ought to follow the law. I intend to be that person so I can go back to work on these things.”
Meanwhile, William Hundley, Jordan’s lawyer, appeared to provide new context for the sequence of events that launched Jordan into action on Lewinsky’s behalf in December.
Hundley - asked at the courthouse whether Clinton had solicited Jordan’s help for Lewinsky - said: “He got a call from the president’s secretary (Betty Currie).”
Was it Jordan’s understanding, Hundley was asked, that the call from Currie was a request from the president? “She’s the president’s secretary,” Hundley said.
Did this, then, amount to a request from the president? “No question,” Hundley said.
Hundley told reporters that Jordan was not of the belief that Lewinsky and Clinton had engaged in sex. “No,” Hundley said, “But he (Jordan) did ask the $64,000 question: ‘Did you or didn’t you?’ The president said no.”
Lewinsky signed an affidavit on Jan. 7 swearing that she did not engage in sexual relations with Clinton. Since the controversy broke publicly on Jan. 21, William Ginsburg, her attorney, has given varying indications of whether she might tell a different or more complete story.
Meanwhile Thursday, lawyers who had been privy to Clinton’s Jan. 17 deposition in the Jones lawsuit took turns denying that they were the source of the Post account.
Starr issued this statement: “We categorically deny that we were either directly or indirectly the source of the story.”
Three lawyers who represent Clinton, Mickey Kantor, Robert Bennett and David Kendall, termed the dissemination of Clinton’s testimony “a reprehensible and unethical act.” This was done, they alleged, “by antagonists of the president.”
Jones’ attorneys said it was “erroneous, irresponsible and fallacious” to imply that they leaked the Clinton deposition.
Jones’ lawyers said the leak appeared to be an attempt to “preempt” the significance of their legal motion urging the judge overseeing the Jones case not to dismiss their lawsuit. The motion is due by March 13.
The lawsuit, in which Jones, a former Arkansas government worker, alleges that Clinton made a crude sexual advance to her in a hotel room in 1991, is scheduled to go to trial in May. U.S. District Judge Susan Webber Wright, who is overseeing the case, did not indicate Thursday whether she will take any action in response to the leak of Clinton’s deposition.