With the grand jury phase of Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr’s investigation winding down, the White House on Friday asked the U.S. Supreme Court to decide whether one of the president’s closest associates must testify about certain conversations concerning Monica Lewinsky.
White House Counsel Charles Ruff issued a statement reiterating his belief that, as a general rule, the traditional attorney-client privilege should cover government lawyers and officials. While he cited no individuals by name, Ruff’s most immediate concern involves the much-sought testimony of Deputy White House Counsel Bruce Lindsey.
“Our appeal reflects our strong belief that the long-standing legal principles according attorneys and their clients the right to have confidential communications apply equally to government lawyers and officials, including the president,” Ruff said in the statement.
“We believe that this position is firmly rooted in legal precedent and ultimately serves the public interest by ensuring fully informed and accurate decision-making through frank and candid conversations between government officials and lawyers.”
Lindsey, perhaps Clinton’s closest confidant, has appeared before Starr’s grand jury but refused to testify about certain information he contended was protected under attorney-client privilege. That information, it is believed, includes discussions he and Clinton had regarding Lewinsky, the former White House intern with whom Clinton engaged in what he now terms a relationship that was “not appropriate.”
A lower court said the attorney-client privilege would only apply to Clinton’s discussions with private, not government, lawyers. The court ordered Lindsey to testify and a federal appeals court upheld that ruling in a 2-1 decision.
On Aug. 4, Chief Justice William Rehnquist rejected a request to block Lindsey’s testimony until the issue was decided.
White House lawyers Cheryl Mills and Lanny Breuer have appeared before the grand jury in recent weeks.
With more than 80 people having told the grand jury what they knew about the relationship between Clinton and Lewinsky, Lindsey is on a very short list of remaining possible witnesses. The list could also include recalls of presidential secretary Betty Currie and Clinton confidant Vernon Jordan, who have testified.
The biggest uncertainty remaining in the case is whether one of those witnesses will be the president himself. According to knowledgeable sources, the president refused to answer certain questions about the extent of his sexual relationship with Lewinsky.
He told the American people Monday that when he denied under oath having “sexual relations” with Lewinsky in connection with the Paula Jones sexual-harassment suit, his answers were “legally accurate.”
Clinton’s testimony to the grand jury, which began with a statement by Clinton to explain the nature of his relationship with Lewinsky, was carefully crafted to avoid any later charges that he had not testified truthfully, according to knowledgeable sources. His approach had the added political benefit, should Starr choose to compel more testimony from him, of labeling Starr’s additional questions salacious and unnecessary.
Lewinsky, another source said, has told the grand jury that the president engaged in sexual contact with her in a way that would have been covered by the legalistic definition used in the Jones case. Any clear contradiction between the two could be the grounds for a perjury allegation against the president.
If Starr were to recall the president, he might have to issue a subpoena in an effort to compel Clinton to answer questions, a tactic that could prolong the investigation if the matter were litigated by the president.
Another area of potential conflict would be Lewinsky’s account of how she came to return gifts that the president gave her after she had been named as a possible witness in the Jones case. The president answered some questions about that subject before the federal grand jury, but no details have been made public.
Most analysts agree the investigative phase of Starr’s work is likely near an end.
“You have to believe that all conventional wisdom, which often has not applied to the prosecution of this case, would suggest that the grand jury phase is winding down,” said Chicago defense lawyer Edward McNally, a former prosecutor and George Bush administration official.
“They have heard from almost any witness anywhere near the playing field,” he said. “It’s like a college term paper. It’s time for Judge Starr to turn it in to the professor even if it is not perfect.”
U.S. Rep. Henry Hyde (R-Ill.), chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, which would initiate any impeachment hearings, said Friday that he was disappointed in Clinton’s comments during the televised address Monday when the president said he had “misled” the country about having an “improper relationship” with Lewinsky.
“I think it was important that he apologize, and I don’t think he did,” Hyde said. “I wouldn’t say it was disheartening to me, but it did fill in a few blanks.”
Hyde said he will wait to read Starr’s report before deciding whether Clinton committed any impeachable offenses. His congressional committee will then decide whether to proceed with impeachment hearings based on the report.
Hyde said he was not sure what would constitute impeachable offenses, except that “we will know them when we see them.”
———-
ON THE INTERNET: Find background on President Clinton’s legal problems at
chicagotribune.com/go/clinton
