Grand Jury Rules Don’t Gag Clinton

For weeks, President Clinton has been saying that the law prohibits him from detailing the nature of his relationship with former White House intern Monica S. Lewinsky, but his spokesman conceded Monday that there are no legal “rules” preventing him from doing so--just common sense.

Also Monday, Clinton’s private attorney, David E. Kendall, filed a motion seeking an investigation of what he has alleged are improper leaks of information from the office of independent counsel Kenneth W. Starr, who is conducting an investigation of whether the president had an affair and lied--or urged others to lie--under oath to try to cover it up.

In another development, Lewinsky’s chief lawyer said he plans to file two legal motions today, including one seeking to void a subpoena requiring Lewinsky to testify before the federal grand jury reviewing evidence gathered in Starr’s investigation.

As late as Friday, Clinton reiterated in a news conference that he is refraining from saying more about Lewinsky because he was “honoring the rules of the investigation.”

On Monday, however, White House spokesman Joe Lockhart said: “I think, as we know now, there’s no specific rule. . . . “ The best explanation for the president’s continued refusal to comment further, Lockhart said, is the “common-sense rule” that the object of a criminal investigation is best served when he keeps silent.

The president repeatedly has denied having sexual relations with Lewinsky.

The federal rules of criminal procedure prohibit prosecutors, such as those working for Starr, from revealing evidence before a grand jury investigation. Witnesses and targets of federal prosecution, as well as their lawyers, are not governed by that rule.

There is a gag order in effect on the president’s deposition in the Paula Corbin Jones sexual-harassment lawsuit. Clinton was questioned about Lewinsky in that deposition, but Lockhart confirmed Monday that that does not prevent the president from giving a more comprehensive explanation of any contact he had with Lewinsky.

Although U.S. District Judge Susan Webber Wright has ruled that evidence concerning Lewinsky is inadmissible in the Jones suit, that civil case continues to illuminate the ongoing criminal proceedings.

Jones’ attorney, Donovan Campbell Jr., who questioned Clinton under oath on Jan. 17, said the president “committed perjury” if Lewinsky’s tape-recorded comments are true.

Campbell’s statement, part of a motion filed on Friday in Little Rock, Ark., marked the first on-the-record confirmation that Clinton denied during his deposition any and all sexual contact with the former White House intern.

“If the allegations inherent in the Monica evidence are true, then defendant Clinton committed perjury himself concerning such matters in his own deposition and has now embarked upon a very aggressive cover-up campaign,” Campbell said in his motion.

Late Monday, Kendall filed his motion under seal because it dealt with grand jury secrecy. The motion asks U.S. District Judge Nancy Holloway Johnson to investigate and prevent alleged leaks from Starr’s office. If Johnson finds that wrongdoing has occurred, she has a number of options--from imposing jail time to issuing an order prohibiting any future leaks.

“She has wide latitude to conduct an investigation if she chooses to,” said one lawyer familiar with the matter.

Lewinsky lawyer William Ginsburg said he would seek today to have Judge Johnson void a subpoena that otherwise would compel Lewinsky to appear before the federal grand jury. He will also ask the judge to “enforce” what he believes is an agreement with Starr to grant Lewinsky full immunity from prosecution in exchange for her truthful testimony. Starr has said no such agreement exists.

“We just aren’t going to cooperate with the prosecutor unless we have complete immunity,” Ginsburg said in a telephone interview.

Ginsburg termed as false media accounts that Lewinsky would appear before the grand jury Thursday, saying his client was subpoenaed “two weeks ago.” He said it is possible he and Lewinsky would return to Washington from Los Angeles toward the end of the week.

In a new sign that Republicans in Congress are girding for possible impeachment proceedings against Clinton, House Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.) has told fellow Republicans that he will dip into a $4.4-million reserve to expand the House Judiciary Committee’s investigative staff if Starr reports incriminating findings to Congress.

A Gingrich aide confirmed that the speaker, in a closed meeting last week with House committee chairmen, discussed what would happen if Starr “dumped a bunch of documents” on House Judiciary Chairman Henry J. Hyde (R-Ill.) and his panel.

“If we get a ton of material, clearly Mr. Hyde is going to need additional staff,” the aide said. “We will probably use the $4.4 million.”

The aide stressed that Gingrich raised the issue not because Republicans were planning to launch their own impeachment investigation but simply because the independent counsel law requires Starr to report to the House Judiciary Committee if he finds “substantial and credible information” about offenses that offer grounds for possible impeachment.

However, Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott (R-Miss.) said he has not begun planning for possible impeachment proceedings.

Times staff writers Janet Hook, Robert L. Jackson and David G. Savage contributed to this report.