Clinton Won’t Discuss Lewinsky Warning

President Clinton refused to explain Thursday why he warned former White House intern Monica S. Lewinsky that she was likely to be called to testify about her relationship with him.

Clinton sternly refused to answer any questions raised by the newly disclosed contents of his deposition in the sexual harassment case filed against him by Paula Corbin Jones, arguing that it would be “against the law.”

Clinton’s refusal came on the same day that Vernon E. Jordan Jr., his friend and trusted advisor, reappeared before a federal grand jury trying to determine why Jordan lined up a job offer and the services of a Washington attorney for Lewinsky.

Jordan acknowledged after testifying that he had kept Clinton apprised, in December and January, of his efforts to assist Lewinsky. Jordan said that his actions were not part of a quid pro quo to encourage Lewinsky to lie under oath about her dealings with the president.

“I kept the president informed about my activities,” Jordan said, adding: “I did not in any way tell her, encourage her to lie.”

The testimony of both Jordan and Lewinsky is probably pivotal in determining if independent counsel Kenneth W. Starr will bring perjury or obstruction of justice charges that would threaten Clinton’s presidency. Whether Clinton’s warning to Lewinsky was an attempt to influence her testimony also could be central to an obstruction of justice charge. Jordan, whose once rock-solid closeness with Clinton has been tested by the controversy, borrowed from Scripture as he left the federal courthouse.

“I feel about like Paul wrote in the letter: I have fought a good fight. I have finished my course. I have kept the faith. And we’ll see what time will tell us.”

One floor down from where Jordan testified, lawyers for Lewinsky and Starr squared off before a federal judge who is overseeing the case. Lewinsky’s lawyers contended that their client has a valid deal with Starr, in which she would testify in exchange for a grant of immunity from prosecution. Starr has argued that there is no deal.

According to those familiar with the matter, Chief District Judge Norma Holloway Johnson supported Starr’s position.

The day’s events unfolded against the backdrop of a published report that provided extensive details of Clinton’s Jan. 17 sworn testimony in the Jones case about his behavior with Lewinsky and five other alleged paramours.

Amid intrigue befitting a spy novel, Clinton and lawyers representing virtually every major party with access to his testimony--which had been sealed by a federal judge--denied being the source of the report by the Washington Post.

The Post account reported that the president alerted Lewinsky that she might be among the many women he knew who were being summoned to testify by Jones’ lawyers. Clinton also testified that Bruce R. Lindsey, the president’s confidant and deputy White House counsel, learned that Lewinsky was on a witness list in the Jones case.

Presidential aides have said over the last several weeks that Clinton is constrained from publicly saying any more than he has because any comments he makes could deepen his jeopardy with the independent counsel. They did not dispute the Post version of Clinton’s testimony.

Still, the questions surrounding whether Clinton directly or through others sought to shape Lewinsky’s testimony are central to determining whether crimes occurred.

Clinton reacted angrily Thursday when asked by reporters to comment on the details of the published account of his testimony.

“The court has made it absolutely clear [that] it is illegal to leak and discuss it [the testimony]. . . ,” Clinton said at the outset of a meeting to discuss Medicare policy. “Somebody in this case ought to follow the law. I intend to be that person so I can go back to work on these things.”

Pressed by a reporter, who said that he has yet to answer “the important questions” arising from the controversy, Clinton responded: “Well, I believe I have given all the answers that matter. And I don’t have anything else to say at this time.”

Meanwhile, William G. Hundley, Jordan’s lawyer, appeared to provide new context for the sequence of events that launched Jordan into action on Lewinsky’s behalf in December.

Hundley--asked at the courthouse whether Clinton had solicited Jordan’s help for Lewinsky--said: “He got a call from the president’s secretary,” Betty W. Currie.

Was it Jordan’s understanding, Hundley was asked, that the call from Currie was actually a request from the president? “She’s the president’s secretary,” Hundley said.

Did this, then, amount to a request from the president? “No question,” Hundley said.

Hundley told reporters that Jordan was not of the belief that Lewinsky and Clinton had engaged in sex. “No,” Hundley said, “but he [Jordan] did ask the $64,000 question: Did you or didn’t you? The president said no.”

As he left the courthouse after completing his second day of testimony, Jordan said that he did not know if prosecutors would bring him before the grand jury again. Earlier, Hundley had quipped: “The sex seminar has to end sometime.”

Lewinsky signed an affidavit on Jan. 7 swearing that she did not engage in sexual relations with Clinton. Since the controversy broke publicly on Jan. 21, William H. Ginsburg, her attorney, has given varying indications of whether she might tell a different or more complete story.

According to people familiar with the investigation, Lewinsky’s lawyers have told prosecutors that, in exchange for immunity, she would testify she had oral sex with the president but that he did not instruct her to lie about it.

Meanwhile Thursday, lawyers who had been privy to Clinton’s Jan. 17 deposition in the Jones lawsuit took turns vehemently denying that they were the source of the Washington Post account.

Starr issued this terse statement: “We categorically deny that we were either directly or indirectly the source of the story.”

Three lawyers who represent Clinton, Mickey Kantor, Robert S. Bennett and David E. Kendall, termed the dissemination of Clinton’s testimony “a reprehensible and unethical act.” This was done, they alleged, “by antagonists of the president.”

Jones’ attorneys said that it was “erroneous, irresponsible and fallacious” to imply that they leaked the Clinton deposition.

They also suggested that, when the deposition eventually is publicly released, the “litmus test” will be to compare the actual version with the anecdotes cited by the Post. Jones’ lawyers said that the public then will see “whether, how, and for whose favor the deposition testimony was spun in the article.”

Jones’ lawyers said that the leak appeared to be an attempt to “preempt” the significance of their legal motion urging the judge overseeing the Jones case not to dismiss their lawsuit. The motion is due by March 13.

Separately, John Whitehead, president and founder of the Rutherford Institute, which is bankrolling the Jones legal team, said that “we are emphatically denying” leaking the deposition.

The lawsuit, in which Jones, a former Arkansas government worker, alleges that Clinton made a crude sexual advance to her in a hotel room in 1991, is scheduled to go to trial in May. U.S. District Judge Susan Webber Wright, who is overseeing the case, did not indicate Thursday whether she will take any action in response to the leak of Clinton’s deposition.

Mike McCurry, the White House press secretary, told reporters early in the day that he believes the White House possessed only one copy of Clinton’s transcribed testimony and that no one in the administration was responsible for the leak.

Times staff writers Robert L. Jackson, Jonathan Peterson, Richard A. Serrano, Ronald J. Ostrow and Elizabeth Shogren contributed to this story.