Clinton to Answer Jones’ Suit With High-Risk Legal Strategy : Law: An elaborate motion to dismiss seeks to avoid any detailed response to sex harassment charges. Failure could mean a humiliating trial.

In their rebuttal to the sexual harassment charges filed by former Arkansas employee Paula Corbin Jones, President Clinton’s attorneys intend to summon the support of some powerful historical allies: John Quincy Adams, Thomas Jefferson and Richard Nixon.

By invoking the names of these former presidents, each of whom helped to define the legal prerogatives of the presidency, the President and his advisers hope to persuade the courts to dramatically expand a long-observed principle that has shielded presidents from civil litigation while they are in the White House.

This high-risk legal maneuver will be the centerpiece of an elaborate motion for dismissal that the President plans to file with the court this week in response to Jones’ suit, according to Clinton’s advisers.

U.S. District Judge Susan Webber Wright, who coincidentally was a constitutional law student of Clinton’s at the University of Arkansas in Fayetteville, is expected to rule on the issue shortly thereafter.

If Clinton’s legal strategy succeeds, he could be spared the embarrassment of responding in detail to Jones’ allegations that as governor of Arkansas he tried to entice her into a sexual liaison in a Little Rock hotel room in May, 1991. In addition, he would succeed in charting a new legal prerogative for himself and all future presidents.

But if it fails, his advisers concede, he almost certainly would be forced to endure a humiliating court trial that would focus national attention on his sexual habits. A ruling in Jones’ favor could also be a serious blow to the institution of the presidency, making it more vulnerable to political attack through the judicial system.

By claiming presidential immunity from civil litigation, Clinton’s legal advisers hope to persuade Wright to dismiss Jones’ suit without hearing any testimony on her sensational allegations.

At minimum, if Wright agrees to hear arguments on the immunity issue before proceeding with the substance of the case, the dispute over presidential prerogatives could delay hearings on the complaint for months--or years--especially if both sides are inclined to carry their battle all the way up to the U.S. Supreme Court.

During a 40-minute telephone conference call last week between Wright and attorneys in the case, the judge gave Clinton’s lead attorney, Robert S. Bennett, 10 days to file a memorandum supporting his request to handle the immunity issue first. Jones’ lawyers will then have another 10 days to respond to Bennett’s argument.

Meanwhile, Atty. Gen. Janet Reno has asked Solicitor General Drew S. Days III and Acting Associate Atty. Gen. William C. Bryson to recommend how the Justice Department should approach the sensitive issue of presidential immunity. It is likely the Justice Department will file a brief supporting Clinton’s claim of presidential immunity.

In her vividly descriptive suit filed in early May, Jones, a former $6.35-an-hour employee of the Arkansas Industrial Development Commission, alleged that three years earlier Clinton lured her into a Little Rock hotel room and asked her to perform oral sex.

Clinton insists he has no recollection of meeting Jones, and his defenders are known to have witnesses who will testify that Jones did nothing more than shake hands with the governor that day.

As many lawyers see it, Jones’ sexual harassment case is deficient in a number of respects. Not only did she file her suit after the statute of limitations had expired under the most pertinent laws, but she has not yet substantiated her claim that she suffered retribution in her job after refusing Clinton’s alleged sexual overtures.

Indeed, Jones acknowledged in an interview last week that she received several raises after the incident but insisted they were not comparable to those awarded her peers.

Complainants in sexual harassment suits usually are required by the court to establish that they worked in a sexually hostile environment. Or they must establish a link between the harassment and their treatment on the job.

Despite the apparent weaknesses of her complaint in that regard, however, sources said Clinton’s advisers have told him that Wright is unlikely to dismiss the complaint simply on those grounds.

And if the judge begins hearing testimony in the case, they have predicted, the President could be forced to present graphic evidence in court to disprove Jones’ contention that she saw “distinguishing characteristics in Clinton’s genital area”--much as music star Michael Jackson was forced to do in response to a sexual abuse complaint filed against him by an unidentified boy.

As a result, Clinton’s advisers have concluded that a trial on the merits of the case must be avoided, even if they feel confident of a favorable outcome. That is the reason Clinton’s lawyers are depending so heavily on their claim of presidential immunity to win dismissal before a trial.

Under current law, there is no doubt that presidents are immune from any litigation relating to their official duties. The precedent was established in a U.S. Supreme Court decision in 1982 involving a suit filed against Nixon by government whistle-blower Ernie Fitzgerald.

But the ruling is silent on suits such as Jones’ that deal with matters beyond the purview of a President’s official duties. Herbert J. Miller Jr., a veteran Washington attorney who argued Nixon vs. Fitzgerald on behalf of the late President, said the ruling does not provide a solid precedent for Clinton’s situation.

“I don’t think the Nixon case is a firm precedent for granting the present President immunity for pre-presidential conduct,” Miller said in an interview.

Jones’ attorneys, Gilbert K. Davis and Joseph Camaratta, said they will assert that the decision in Nixon vs. Fitzgerald has no bearing on their complaint because an encounter with Jones would be unrelated to his presidential duties.

But those representing the President are prepared to argue that Jones’ suit would divert the President’s attention from governing, just as the Fitzgerald complaint would have distracted Nixon had it been allowed to proceed.

Quoting from Adams and Jefferson, the President’s lawyers are certain to argue that the nature of the presidency requires the courts to reject such suits, sources said. Adams wrote that subjecting a President to lawsuits would violate the separation of powers by giving the courts authority over him.

But Clinton’s immunity against Jones’ suit should last only as long as he is President, his lawyers will argue. If Jones wants to refile it after he leaves the White House, nothing should prevent it, in their view.

Another citation likely to show up in the President’s legal brief: the Soldiers and Sailors Civil Relief Act of 1940, which protects servicemen from liability while they are acting in the line of duty. If such protection belongs to a lowly soldier, Clinton’s lawyers believe, it belongs to the commander in chief as well.

One of the central points that the President’s lawyers are likely to raise has more to do with politics than law. They are certain to note that Jones was first introduced to the national press earlier this year at a news conference staged by Clinton’s conservative critics.

If Jones is permitted to sue the President, one Clinton adviser mused, “isn’t this going to be the next partisan tactic to be used in an era of partisan annihilation?”