Chance for Witnesses to Appear in Senate Dims

Several senators who saw Monica S. Lewinsky’s videotaped testimony Tuesday said that House prosecutors are losing ground in their effort to bring live witnesses to the Senate impeachment trial of President Clinton.

Meanwhile, the House GOP managers videotaped the testimony of presidential friend Vernon E. Jordan Jr. but learned no major new details, sources said, a result similar to what was learned in the Lewinsky deposition Monday.

A top Senate GOP leadership aide acknowledged that, because the depositions are “not going well,” it appears increasingly likely that no witnesses will be called before the Senate.

“It’s not a foregone conclusion,” the aide said. “But I would . . . bet that they wouldn’t call any of these witnesses.”

“Based on what my staff told me,” said Sen. Robert F. Bennett (R-Utah), “there is nothing new. . . . I would not expect [Lewinsky] to be called.”

If, as it appears, Lewinsky’s deposition contains no new evidence, Sen. Thad Cochran (R-Miss.) said, he sees no need for her to testify. “If there’s nothing new, there won’t be any effect whatsoever,” he said.

For their part, Democrats were pleased that the Republicans’ attempt to broaden the trial with witnesses appeared to be coming apart.

“The air is coming out of the balloon, and fast,” said a Senate Democratic strategist.

Asked what he thought now of House GOP demands that Lewinsky testify live on the Senate floor, Sen. John Edwards (D-N.C.), one of the senators overseeing the deposition, said: “I would not do that.”

But some GOP senators, including Sen. Orrin G. Hatch (R-Utah), chairman of the Judiciary Committee, said they now believe that Lewinsky should testify in person when the trial resumes Thursday. Others said only that the tape and transcript of her testimony should at least be released to the public.

The third and final deposition authorized by the Senate for the trial, that of White House assistant Sidney Blumenthal, is scheduled for today. Then the Senate will turn to the question of whether any of the three witnesses should appear in person on the Senate floor when the impeachment trial resumes Thursday.

“I want the witnesses to testify live,” said Rep. James E. Rogan (R-Glendale), a House manager who will depose Blumenthal. “Not on tape, not on transcript, but live bodies where all the senators can hear them.”

Jordan, a Clinton confidant who helped Lewinsky find a new job in exchange--House prosecutors believe--for her silence about her sexual affair with the president, testified for three hours in a secure room inside the Capitol building.

His testimony repeated much of what he said last year before a federal grand jury about whether Clinton had enlisted his aid to get Lewinsky out of Washington when lawyers for Paula Corbin Jones, who had sued Clinton for sexual harassment, wanted to question her, the sources reported.

They also said that White House lawyers asked only two questions during the Jordan deposition. But, unlike with Lewinsky, the Clinton attorneys offered him no apology for being swept up in the scandal that has enveloped Washington for more than a year.

Some Nuggets From Jordan

According to a source in the deposition room, Jordan did provide a few new nuggets to House manager Asa Hutchinson (R-Ark.), who questioned him. The source gave this version of Jordan’s testimony:

Jordan elaborated on his grand jury testimony and said for the first time that he and Lewinsky discussed an affidavit that she was preparing to file in the Jones lawsuit.

In the affidavit, Lewinsky denied having sex with Clinton.

Jordan said that his conversation with her was on the telephone and that he never actually saw the affidavit.

Jordan acknowledged that Lewinsky asked him about some of the phrases in the affidavit. He said their conversation may have lasted a long time because she was chatty on the phone while he fidgeted with papers on his desk and at times was not giving her his full attention.

While Jordan could not remember all of the details of their phone conversation, he never told her to lie, he said. Jordan said he did tell her to consult her lawyer.

Jordan also insisted in his deposition that he never thought there was a sexual relationship between Lewinsky and Clinton. Lewinsky, however, testified last year that she told Jordan that she and the president had engaged in phone sex.

Jordan added in the deposition that he never read the affidavit, even though Lewinsky testified that she left a copy at his reception desk. Jordan maintained that the affidavit simply never got to him.

Jordan also disputed Lewinsky’s testimony to the grand jury that he had told her at a breakfast meeting to destroy handwritten notes to Clinton that she had left in her apartment. In previous testimony, Jordan had said that he did not have breakfast with the intern. But in his deposition Tuesday, he testified that--while he did not specifically recall such a meeting--it may have occurred. He said that he never told Lewinsky to destroy anything and could only surmise that she may have misunderstood something he may have said.

On the issue of the job search, Jordan said that it had nothing to do with her signing a false affidavit because he never believed the affidavit was incorrect.

White House lawyers asked Jordan whether he had tried to find jobs for others and about his rise from humble origins to become one of Washington’s most influential power brokers.

“The only thing I really own is my integrity,” Jordan said in response to the second question.

The atmosphere in the room was described as civil and cordial, with no tempers lost and Hutchinson’s gentlemanly behavior matching Jordan’s cool demeanor. At one point, the session recessed when the camera blew a fuse.

In the end, the source’s conclusion was that Jordan gave them “absolutely nothing new, no surprises” that would make a difference in removing Clinton from office.

Hutchinson had only a terse statement after the deposition. “The deposition was conducted with professionalism from all sides and I am satisfied that we covered the areas that needed to be covered,” he said.

Senators may begin viewing the Jordan deposition this morning. After watching the Lewinsky video on Tuesday, they came away with mixed reviews.

“I found her young and vulnerable and credible,” said Hatch. “I think she’d be a very compelling witness in many ways.”

He added that “personally I think it would be a good thing” for her to testify on the Senate floor.

“I think it’s always better to have people see the live witnesses and let them make up their own minds. I just think it’s far better for the public to view her and make up their own minds about her credibility.”

His colleague, Sen. Larry E. Craig (R-Idaho), found her to be “a very articulate, credible person.”

“In no way would it offend the sensibilities of the American people if it were viewed,” he said of the Lewinsky videotape.

But at the same time, according to an aide to a top Senate GOP leader, there was a general feeling among Senate Republicans who viewed the Lewinsky tape that Rep. Ed Bryant (R-Tenn.), who questioned the former White House intern, “did a terrible job.”

According to one source, the Lewinsky video showed Bryant unprepared, getting dates wrong and generally performing unimpressively.

On Tuesday, Bryant said only that he plans to push for Lewinsky’s live testimony in the Senate.

Many Republicans now think that it will be even more difficult, if not impossible, to get the 67 votes to convict and remove Clinton from office.

But Rep. Henry J. Hyde (R-Ill.), the House Judiciary Committee chairman who oversees the managers, insisted that the issues of the trial have not yet been decided.

“We never felt we needed any bombshells to have a compelling case,” he said of the depositions. “It is our intention to request live witnesses. We think that is the highest and best evidence and that will be our firm request.”

GOP Debates ‘Finding of Fact’

Meanwhile, Senate Republicans met in a closed party caucus and debated the idea of passing a “finding of fact” measure that would declare the facts of the House case to be true, even though the president was not convicted, before the final vote on articles of impeachment.

Assistant Senate Majority Leader Don Nickles (R-Okla.) said that “there’s a lot of interest” on a measure that lays out the president’s alleged misdeeds.

But among those who need to be convinced are two senators at opposite ends of the ideological spectrum.

Sen. Phil Gramm (R-Texas), a conservative, worried that passing a “finding of fact” would be an easy out for Republicans wary of voting for conviction. “I’m listening. I have an open mind, but I don’t have an empty mind,” he said.

Sen. James M. Jeffords (R-Vt.), a moderate, said he is concerned because all “senators are supposed to establish their own standards for evidence.”

But Jeffords acknowledged that many Republicans are concerned that Clinton could be acquitted without chastisement and see it as a victory to be celebrated.

“A lot of us have a very, very deep concern,” Jeffords said. “But I have confidence he’s not so foolish as to resurrect the cheering squad.”

Times staff writers Edwin Chen, James Gerstenzang, Sheila Hotchkin, Janet Hook, Marc Lacey and Art Pine contributed to this story.

* DEVOTED AIDE: Sidney Blumenthal is known for his unswerving support of President Clinton. A13

* RULING REVISITED: Chief Justice Rehnquist’s earlier ruling may hurt obstruction charge. A14