Clinton’s Safety Net

Can President Bill Clinton survive this? Of course he can. He’s got the most powerful ally of all, one that’s been with him through this whole eight-month-long sordid mess: the American public.

The prevailing wisdom in Washington is the opposite, that there’s no way out for the president. He’s in a pickle, a bind, a fix. Events are closing in on him. All his choices are bad.

Scenario 1: Evade, evade, evade. He could invent some pretext and refuse to testify to the grand jury tomorrow. Or refuse to answer questions that he considers out of bounds, like, “Did you, in fact, have sexual relations with that woman?” But evasion would risk antagonizing his staunchest ally. Clinton promised to cooperate fully with the legal process, and the public will hold him to that. That’s why, against the advice of all legal experts, Clinton agreed to testify “voluntarily” tomorrow instead of pleading the Fifth.

Scenario 2: Deny, deny, deny. Deny a sexual relationship with Monica S. Lewinsky, the former White House intern, even though she has reportedly testified that there was one. Even though there may be, ahem, physical evidence.

More and more Americans have come to the conclusion that Clinton did have sexual relations with Lewinsky, despite the fact he denied it. A month ago, two-thirds of the public didn’t buy the president’s denial, according to the Gallup poll. Now, three-quarters don’t.

To most Americans, denying is lying. But the public has decided it’s not such a terrible thing to lie about something that’s nobody else’s business. Certainly not the public’s business. Or the independent counsel’s.

On the other hand, lying to the grand jury is a serious matter. It’s a crime, one most Americans consider serious enough to warrant impeachment. The president lies to the grand jury at considerable legal peril. And political peril: The public is not likely to believe his continuing denials. They’ll assume he’s lying under oath.

Scenario 3. Tell the truth. To most people, that means owning up to some kind of sexual relationship with Lewinsky. That scenario also entails legal risk. It would bolster the efforts by Paula Corbin Jones’ attorneys to resurrect her lawsuit. It could also open the president up to other legal actions.

Kenneth W. Starr, the independent counsel, could try to indict the president for perjury. Or at least cite Clinton’s change of testimony as evidence of possible criminal wrongdoing that could lead to impeachment.

Nonetheless, the legal risks may be limited. There doesn’t seem to be any hard evidence that Clinton participated in a scheme to obstruct justice. Nothing more than Lewinsky’s reported testimony that she and the president devised “cover stories” to hide their relationship. It could nd up her word against the president’s.

We also know that Clinton’s original deposition in the Jones case was vague and evasive. He used terms like “that’s possible,” “I’m not sure” and “I don’t remember.” The deposition elicited only one flat denial from the president: “I have never had sexual relations with Monica Lewinsky.” But the president may have wiggle room, so to speak, on the issue of what constitutes “sexual relations,” a point on which the judge and the Jones attorneys disagreed.

Acknowledging a sexual relationship may not create too much of a legal problem for the president. But it could create a political problem. Word of the president’s testimony would surely leak out. The press would demand he come clean and confess to the American people. The media would remind the public, at regular intervals, that the president was apparently lying when he made his defiant statement in January.

So how does Clinton survive this? By following the advice of James Carville, his former campaign strategist: “Go in, tell the grand jury the truth, go on vacation.” That’s Scenario 4: Say as little as possible. Testify, acknowledge a sexual relationship--if that is the truth--and then say little about it publicly. If he chooses to address the nation tomorrow night, he should keep the explanations and apologies to a minimum. No mea culpa speech.

Wouldn’t the president’s testimony get out? Almost certainly. Wouldn’t he be under pressure to make a complete public disclosure? From the press, yes. They’d go nuts, clamoring for the president to confess. “What about your grand-jury testimony?” the press would demand. “Do you confirm it or deny it?” What could the president say? Just this: “Grand-jury leaks are illegal. I will not respond to illegal leaks.”

The more the press clamors, the more Clinton can score points by standing up to them. He’s won that battle before. That’s the president’s biggest advantage in this controversy: He’s made a good choice of enemies. Last week’s Gallup poll asked people if they approve or disapprove of the way various parties have handled the controversy. The Republicans in Congress? Fifty-two percent disapprove. Starr? Fifty-eight percent disapprove. The news media? A whopping 74% disapprove. About the same as Lewinsky. In the public’s view, the press is no different from Monica. They’re all tramps!

But what happens when Starr sends his report to Congress, laying out the evidence for possible impeachment? Won’t the president have to comment on that? Not necessarily. The GOP majority in Congress is taking steps to keep Starr’s report under wraps until they decide what to do. They’ve seen the polls. They know the impeachment issue could blow up in their face. They’re not eager to deal with it until after the November election. So the Republicans may try to maintain the secrecy of the grand-jury evidence. That plays directly into the president’s hands. He does not have to comment publicly on a still-secret report.

Starr may also play into the president’s hands. His initial report to Congress is expected to concentrate entirely on l’affaire Lewinsky: Whether the president had sexual relations with her and whether he lied about it. Nothing about the Whitewater land deal. Nothing about the White House travel office. Nothing about the mishandled FBI files. Just Lewinsky.

That means Starr’s report will be just about sex. Most Americans do not consider the Lewinsky matter serious for that very reason: It’s just about sex. Gallup asked people whether they would lose confidence in Clinton if he told the grand jury he did have sex with Lewinsky. Seventy-one percent said “no.” Would they lose confidence in him if he testified that he did not have sex with Lewinsky? Sixty percent said “no.” But most said they would lose confidence in Clinton if he refused to testify, or if he refused to answer questions about his relationship with Lewinsky. It seems to make little difference to the public what Clinton says tomorrow, as long as he testifies.

The president’s critics have been trying to argue that the controversy is not just about sex. They say it’s about lying, it’s about obstruction of justice, it’s about perjury, it’s about the Constitution. Hendrik Hertzberg writes in the New Yorker: “If repetition could make a thing true, then it would be most emphatically and wonderfully true that the investigation of the relationship between the president and the former intern is not about sex.” But nobody seems to be listening. Because to the American public, it is about sex. That’s why most Americans say the Lewinsky investigation should be stopped, while majorities want to continue investigations into Whitewater and into Clinton’s fund-raising practices.

How long would the president be able to get away with a say-little strategy? Probably until after the November election. Once the immediate danger of a backlash at the polls is over, Congress will release Starr’s report. What will the White House say then? The same thing it said about the campaign-finance revelations last year: “It’s old news.”

How can Clinton hope to get away with the Carville strategy? Simple. The American public is not clamoring to hear from the president on this. More than 60% say they do not believe the videotape of Clinton’s testimony tomorrow should be released to the public. More than 60% say they are not interested in seeing it or listening to it. More than 60% want to know less, not more, about the president’s relationship with Lewinsky.

All the public wants Clinton to do is cooperate with the legal process. He doesn’t have to explain what happened to the American people. They already know.*