Let It Be About Facts Alone

President Clinton and independent counsel Kenneth Starr are headed toward an unprecedented constitutional and political confrontation that both should avoid. And it’s in the national interest that they craft an agreement under which the president can present testimony in the Monica Lewinsky affair without being forced to personally appear before the Whitewater federal grand jury.

The solution is for Clinton to respond to Starr’s questions on videotape at the White House or his lawyer’s office. This is what Clinton did in two criminal trials related to the Whitewater affair and in the civil suit--since dismissed--that was brought against him by Paula Corbin Jones. It was Clinton’s testimony in the Jones suit that sparked the related probe into his possible sexual relationship with Lewinsky while she was a White House intern. Starr is investigating whether Clinton lied about a Lewinsky affair or told Lewinsky to lie about it. Either would be a crime.

The risk for Starr, if he tries to force Clinton to accede to his subpoena to testify before the grand jury, is that it will appear Starr is bent on a political vendetta. After all, Starr cannot ask a grand jury to indict the president on criminal charges. He can only refer the case to the House of Representatives to consider whether the president should face an impeachment trial. In impeachment proceedings, the House assumes the role of a grand jury.

Given that fact, it would not seem unreasonable for Clinton’s lawyers to launch a court challenge of Starr’s ability to enforce his subpoena or seek to have the president held in contempt of court. But that would be a political risk for the president. Public support for his presidency remains strong, but there is no question that people have become weary of the Lewinsky investigation and that they want Clinton to be forthcoming and truthful--as he has promised. Increasingly, Democratic congressional leaders want the president to get the issue settled. They obviously don’t want the scandal to erupt at a new level in the weeks leading to the November elections.

Starr’s goal should be to get the facts in the case, not to precipitate a constitutional crisis that could undermine the delicate balance of powers between the three branches of government. Starr and the president’s lawyers should agree on an acceptable alternative to the grand jury with dispatch.