A Time for Straight Talk

The latest Bill Clinton sex scandal story swept across the nation Wednesday at the speed of light, the sensational tale of a presidential affair with a White House intern who then was counseled by Clinton or his friend Vernon Jordan to lie about it all. The reports leaped from tattle-tale tapes to the office of independent counsel Kenneth W. Starr to Atty. Gen. Janet Reno to a three-judge panel. By the end of the day, there was the thunk of subpoenas landing against the White House door.

In record time, the circle seemed to close. There was no proof, but given Clinton’s reputation with women this new story seemed to carry “heft,” as one source said. Then there was the familiar Clinton response, delivered so carefully, the president’s eyes narrowing to match the pinched legalese of his defense.

The story had every juicy element: secret tapes, an alleged cover-up and an obvious scramble within the White House to get a handle on things. But is it true? We still don’t know.

The president did reject the allegations somewhat more directly and forcefully on Thursday. But we wish Clinton could respond with the confidence that Jordan displayed Thursday. Jordan said calmly and firmly that “absolutely and unequivocally” there was no affair or attempt to cover up anything. He stood, to borrow from a truck commercial, like a rock.

As much as this story reads like another of Clinton’s tabloid adventures, the latest charges are far more serious on two fronts. First, if the story is true, the events did not happen years ago in Arkansas when Clinton was governor. During John F. Kennedy’s presidency, the press and public might have winked at rumors of affairs in the White House. They do not now, especially when the woman allegedly involved--24-year-old Monica Lewinsky--was only 21 or 22 at the time, barely older than the president’s own daughter. Still, even that would merely be a moral and political problem for the president.

The potential legal ramifications, however, could put the Clinton presidency in jeopardy. One allegation is that Clinton might have committed perjury in answering questions about Lewinsky last Saturday when he gave a deposition in the sexual harassment suit brought against him by Paula Corbin Jones. Another is that he and Jordan sought to get Lewinsky to lie about the reported affair. Those actions would constitute two major felony crimes, which would be grounds for Congress to begin impeachment proceedings against Clinton.

But proof might be difficult to obtain. So far all we have is hearsay evidence versus the word of the president of the United States. Whitewater counsel Starr promised to move as quickly as possible. But how does Starr define “quick”? After all, he has been probing Clinton’s past for 3 1/2 years now. Starr got the Lewinsky case through the side door because the tapes were presented to him, and he sought approval of the attorney general and the courts to investigate.

How much simpler life in Washington would be had the Supreme Court ruled that the Paula Jones suit had to wait until Clinton left office, as this newspaper argued. Or if Clinton had settled the case out of court.

The president says he is confident he can put the Lewinsky matter to rest by presenting the full story at a press conference soon. We hope so. He must look the American people in the eye and explain in simple, understandable terms. No legal hair-splitting. Just plain talk.

If Starr has the goods, he should seek indictments promptly. Justice must be served, certainly in the face of perjury and subornation allegations. But a prolonged investigation and premature talk of impeachment are not good for the nation. These allegations will provide endless fodder for jokesters, but the implications for this president and this country--for what we value and where we place our priorities--are anything but funny.