Clinton faces new perils if
compelled to testify
WASHINGTON (June 8, 1998 01:44 a.m. EDT
nando.net) -- Uncertain about what evidence has
been accumulated, President Clinton faces a major peril
if he is forced to testify in the Monica Lewinsky
investigation: an independent counsel trying to catch him
in a "perjury trap."
In a case that will rise or fall on Clinton's truthfulness
under oath, legal observers say prosecutors may try to
match Clinton's testimony against facts investigators
already learned secretly.
The dangers for Clinton may only increase now that Ms.
Lewinsky has a new defense team. Led by veteran
lawyers Plato Cacheris and Jacob Stein, the new team
would have a better chance than Ms. Lewinsky's old
lawyer -- medical malpractice specialist William
Ginsburg -- of negotiating her cooperation with Starr in
return for limited immunity from prosecution.
"Starr has gathered information, much of which the
president is unaware of," said Stephen Gillers, a law
professor at New York University. "When you
(prosecutors) call people at the end of the chain, as the
president and Lewinsky would be, you're already
prepared. You know exactly what you want to ask, and
they don't know what you know."
Several legal experts said they think Starr, rebuffed
several times in trying to procure Clinton's voluntary
grand jury testimony, has been setting the stage for a
subpoena. Starr spokesman Charles Bakaly has nudged
that impression forward, commenting, "We believe that it
is (possible to subpoena a president), without in any way
indicating that is something we would do."
"The moment appears to have arrived," said Jonathan
Turley, a law professor at George Washington University.
"I think he can be subpoenaed," Turley said Sunday on
CBS's "Face the Nation." "The president cannot stand
silent in the face of allegations of criminal conduct. He
has to testify. It's not about personality. It's not about
tactics. It's about the president saying under oath, 'I didn't
commit a crime."'
Jack Quinn, a former presidential counsel in the Clinton
White House, said on NBC's "Meet the Press" that his
former boss should not volunteer to testify to a grand jury,
despite political problems it might raise. "If it's a political
problem, he shouldn't address it by going into a secret
grand jury," Quinn said. "He should address these
questions in a more public forum and in the political
process, where this situation seems headed anyway."
With Clinton under oath, Starr would try to test his
honesty because the case is defined by the question of
truthfulness. He's investigating whether Clinton lied under
oath when he denied having sex with the former White
House intern and whether he and others obstructed
justice by asking her to lie under oath.
Clinton denied a sexual affair with Ms. Lewinsky in a
deposition last January in Paula Jones' now-dismissed
sexual harassment lawsuit against the president. Ms.
Lewinsky submitted a written affidavit in the Jones case
that also denied a sexual relationship. The comments
are at odds with Ms. Lewinsky's discussion of an affair to
her erstwhile friend Linda Tripp, who was wearing a
recording device supplied by Starr.
After Clinton gave his deposition in the Jones case, a
number of former prosecutors said while someone could
be prosecuted for perjury in a civil case, it was rarely
done.
But if caught lying during grand jury testimony in a
criminal case, "It would be much stronger than a lie in a
civil case that was just dismissed," said Paul Rothstein,
a Georgetown University law professor.
"He could get caught in a perjury trap," Rothstein said.
"He runs the risk of saying something that could be
turned around against him. ... History in Washington is,
the thing that ultimately puts politicians in jail is not the
underlying crime but lying about it."
Starr has been laying the groundwork for testing
Clinton's truthfulness by trying to corroborate Ms.
Lewinsky's taped comments. He has subpoenaed
records of her book purchases, taken testimony from
friends she may have confided in and White House
stewards, sought testimony from Secret Service agents
and taken Ms. Lewinsky's handwriting and fingerprint
samples.
"In response to a presidential claim of a lack of memory,
Starr has documents or information he can show Clinton
to refresh his memory, so lack of memory won't be
credible," Gillers said. "He forgets at his peril."
If testimony contradicts what Clinton says, Starr could
"draw the conclusion the president lied under oath." But
rather than have to prove it in court, he could submit a
report to the House and let that body reach a conclusion
as part of an impeachment inquiry.
"Clinton has a great advantage on a public relations
platform, but when it comes to a grand jury, Starr is in
control," Gillers said.
Legal experts are unaware of an instance in which a
sitting president was compelled to testify in a criminal
probe in which he was a potential defendant.
Clinton testified under subpoena by videotape in two
Whitewater trials, but he was only a witness and agreed
to be questioned.
If subpoenaed, Clinton could exercise his Fifth
Amendment right against self-incrimination. But he would
pay an awesome price in the arena of public opinion.
Bruce Yannett, a former Iran-Contra prosecutor,
predicted "a strong likelihood" of a subpoena to Clinton
but urged Starr to weigh the "intrusion" on the
presidency. And if the prosecutor decides to proceed,
Yannett said, "it seems he has the moral responsibility to
justify" his decision.
nando.net
Yannett is a real joker, ain't he? He urges Starr to weigh the "intrusion" on the presidency. How about urging Clinton to stop lying, to tell the truth and to stop demeaning the Presidency?(as if that's possible)
Yannett says Starr "has the moral responsibility to justify" his decision to expose Clinton as a perjurer? Simply absurd. |
