Hyde Asks Clinton to ‘Admit or Deny’ Key Allegations

The chairman of the House Judiciary Committee asked President Clinton on Thursday to “admit or deny” a litany of key allegations that he committed perjury and obstructed justice in the Monica S. Lewinsky scandal, saying that much of the course of the impeachment process depends on the president’s cooperation.

The 81 questions laid out in the letter from Rep. Henry J. Hyde (R-Ill.) go to the heart of concerns about Clinton’s conduct, specifically whether he lied under oath about his secret affair with the former White House intern, urged her to lie and then enlisted others to help find her a new job in return for her silence.

A White House spokesman, declining to comment on the letter, said only that the president’s lawyers were reviewing it.

Hyde also unveiled a scaled-down impeachment process that will feature independent counsel Kenneth W. Starr as the main witness in committee hearings.

Moving forward two days after voters showed little support for the impeachment of Clinton, Hyde insisted that the election results had no influence on the committee’s plans.

Meanwhile, the lawsuit that spawned the impeachment proceedings suffered a blow Thursday when attorneys for Paula Corbin Jones announced that they will stop representing her once an appeals court rules on her sexual harassment claim against Clinton.

The new developments raise the likelihood that Starr’s case against Clinton could be disposed of soon--either with a quick dismissal or a House vote that would send the matter to a reluctant Senate.

The expedited, abbreviated process brought a subdued response from the White House. “This is clearly a positive development,” said Press Secretary Joe Lockhart.

It also sets up a situation in which, after 10 months of anticipation, the nation will hear Starr defend his investigation.

Nevertheless, Lockhart said, the White House welcomed the chance that the impeachment effort may be coming to a short end.

“This in some ways adopts the kind of timing approach that the Democrats laid out earlier,” he said. “It looks like a process that will be done promptly and expeditiously.”

The 11-page Hyde letter never asks Clinton to confirm whether he had sexual relations with Lewinsky but rather focuses on his behavior once it became an issue in the Jones civil case. This was a clear effort by committee lawyers to steer the case away from the lurid aspects of the affair.

“I think our lawyers erred on the side of dignity for the president,” said one GOP committee staffer. “Sex is not an offense, and he wasn’t asked directly about that. We were not intending to embarrass or humiliate the president.”

Letter Addresses White House Concerns

But sex comes up directly four times when prosecutors attempt to show that Clinton lied to the public and to aides who would be testifying before the grand jury.

Hyde’s cover letter, which asks Clinton to respond in writing and under oath by signing an attached affidavit, advises the president that any admissions would have no “bearing or effect on any subsequent or prospective action by the executive or judicial branches of the United States that may be related to this matter.”

This was designed to address White House concerns that if Clinton says too much now, Starr could use the information to prosecute him after he leaves office in 2001.

The first questions ask Clinton to state whether he is the “chief law enforcement officer of the United States of America” and whether he took an oath of office to “preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.” They are clearly aimed at trying to show he violated that trust.

He is asked about his involvement in Lewinsky’s false affidavit submitted in the Jones case, as well as his alleged attempts to help her find a job in New York.

Clinton is asked whether he gave Lewinsky more than a dozen specific gifts, ranging from a lithograph and a hatpin to Davidoff cigars. He also is asked whether he used his personal secretary, Betty Currie, as a cover to sneak Lewinsky into the Oval Office area.

The questions also ask Clinton to admit or deny that he made numerous “false and misleading public statements” in the initial days of the scandal last January, when he asserted that he “did not have sexual relations with that woman, Ms. Lewinsky.”

And they target Clinton’s alleged enlistment of his friend, Vernon E. Jordan Jr., to find Lewinsky a job, as well as Clinton’s reported statements to his closest advisors that he did not have sexual relations with the young woman.

Hyde, in explaining the reason for the letter, cautioned that “no one should take these requests as establishing our final conclusions.

“Rather, they will simply help us to establish what facts are in dispute and what facts are not” and to “bring this matter to a close more quickly.”

Democrats Expected to Challenge Starr

Starr will appear before the panel Nov. 19 to explain his evidence that Clinton carried on a secret sexual relationship with the former White House intern; lied and committed perjury in an attempt to hide the affair; and sought to find her a new job in return for her silence.

The dynamics of his testimony are likely to be high, particularly if Democrats press Starr on other matters, such as his continuing investigations into years-old scandals concerning FBI files and the White House travel office.

The Democrats also likely will challenge Starr on how the Lewinsky matter is related to his initial investigation: a failed Ozarks land enterprise known as Whitewater.

Charles G. Bakaly III, spokesman for Starr’s office, said his boss “will continue to be helpful and cooperate with the Congress.”

Bakaly said, however, that it is not clear that Starr will be able to answer questions about other aspects of his investigation that are not covered by the report he sent to Congress dealing with the Lewinsky matter.

“A lot will depend on where the items are” in terms of the investigation, he said. “If they are still part of a continuing criminal investigation, no, he cannot discuss them.”

On the day Starr testifies, Clinton will be in Tokyo for a meeting of the Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation group.

In brief remarks at the White House on Thursday, Clinton once again sounded his themes that the American public wants an end to the scandal.

“They are tired of seeing Washington focused on politics and personalities,” the president said. “They want the people and their issues and their future taken care of, and that’s what we’re here to do.”

Hyde’s decision to call Starr as the key witness represented an about-face for the Republicans, who were initially hesitant to focus the inquiry on Starr’s tactics as a prosecutor.

Early last month, Hyde told reporters that he would not object if Democrats sought to call Starr as a witness, but he had no plans to do so himself. Hyde’s aides predicted then that Democrats would regret calling the prosecutor, a veteran lawyer who they believed would hold his own under cross-examination.

Despite Hyde’s streamlined approach, the committee’s hard-line Republicans did not see the expedited schedule as a retreat.

“I am one of those who believes in quality, not quantity,” said Rep. Bob Barr (R-Ga.), a former prosecutor who began pushing for impeachment even before the nation heard the name Monica Lewinsky. “I think you should err on the side of presenting fewer witnesses. You don’t want the case diverted off track.”

Barr predicted a committee vote for impeachment and consideration by the full House by year’s end.

“I don’t see that we should have any problem getting this whole matter to the floor well before the end of the year,” he said. “But I’m sure we’ll see the White House use their usual tricks by trying to stall, delay and divert.”

The schedule will unfold like this:

* Monday: Experts on the issue of what constitutes an impeachable offense will appear before a subcommittee of the Judiciary panel. Nineteen constitutional scholars, both friends and foes of Starr’s work, are scheduled to testify.

* Thursday: The Congressional Research Service will conduct a two-hour, closed-door session on impeachment procedures for lawmakers and their staff members. The seminar will feature presentations by congressional lawyers, political scientists and historians.

* Thursday, Nov. 19: Starr.

In a conference call to committee members Wednesday, Hyde said he also may call an expert on perjury to testify about the importance of sworn testimony. He also plans to leave several days open for the possibility of additional witness testimony.

In the Jones case, her lawyers--the Rader, Campbell, Fisher & Pyke firm of Dallas, and the Rutherford Institute of Charlottesville, Va.--said they will represent her only through her appeal to have her lawsuit reinstated. If a federal appeals court reinstates her 4-year-old case, Jones will need to find a third set of lawyers to keep the case alive.

Her current legal team, her second, denied that its exit had anything to with stalled settlement negotiations with the White House.

“We strongly believe that Mrs. Jones’ case is meritorious,” the lawyers said in a statement.

Jones already owes about $2.7 million in legal fees, a sum that many court observers believe is far higher than she would ever receive either through a settlement or at trial.

Bill McMillan, a Jones camp spokesman, said that “Paula is very upset by the lawyers’ quitting her case, but they were never under any agreement to pursue it beyond their appeal. She will have absolutely no trouble finding another firm if it’s reinstated.”

Meanwhile on Thursday, Donovan Campbell, Jones’ chief attorney, telephoned Clinton’s lawyer, Robert S. Bennett, with a demand for $950,000 to settle the case, but Bennett demurred, saying the president is “so upbeat and confident about the future” after the election returns that even his previous $700,000 offer is off the table, according to sources involved in the negotiations.

Times researcher John Beckham in Chicago and staff writers James Gerstenzang, Robert L. Jackson, Alan C. Miller and Ronald J. Ostrow in Washington contributed to this story.

To join an ongoing discussion about the upcoming impeachment hearings and view documents and video related to the Kenneth W. Starr investigation, go to The Times’ Web site at:

https://www.latimes.com/scandal