Clinton Won’t Take Stand, Advisors Say

The White House on Thursday angrily fended off suggestions from House prosecutors that President Clinton should testify at his impeachment trial and berated House prosecutor F. James Sensenbrenner Jr. (R-Wis.) for misrepresenting the testimony of White House Counsel Charles F.C. Ruff.

An appearance by Clinton as a witness in the Senate is exactly what the president’s lawyers want to avoid as they seek to keep potentially risky encounters that could endanger his case in the Senate to a minimum and make the maximum impression that he is busily going about the chores of the presidency.

Indeed, only a snowfall in New York kept Clinton in Washington Thursday evening. He had planned to attend a reception sponsored by the Rev. Jesse Jackson at the New York Stock Exchange. As the prosecution continues to present its case, he plans to fly to New York this morning to promote a program providing investment in poverty-stricken urban and rural areas at a forum Jackson organized.

Turning aside any suggestion that Clinton would testify to the Senate, White House Press Secretary Joe Lockhart said: “The president has testified. He spent four or five hours with a grand jury. This is just the latest attempt by the House managers [prosecutors] to try to change the rules to pursue their political agenda.”

He characterized as worthy of “Alice in Wonderland” talk among House prosecutors to call Clinton as a witness and said: “Anybody who understands a little bit about our judicial system sees how they’ve turned it on its head. Normally, the defense decides if the defendant will testify.”

Manager Accused of Misrepresentation

White House advisors were also angry Thursday that Sensenbrenner told the Senate that Ruff had deliberately dodged questions about whether Clinton had lied during his grand jury testimony.

“During his presentation to the House Judiciary Committee, the president’s very able lawyer, Charles Ruff, was asked directly, ‘Did the president lie?’ during his sworn grand jury testimony,” Sensenbrenner said. “Mr. Ruff could have answered that question directly. He did not and his failure to do so speaks a thousand words.”

Gregory Craig, the president’s special counsel on impeachment, said later that Sensenbrenner had “falsely characterized” Ruff’s remarks. “He misled the Senate,” Craig said. When asked if Clinton had told the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth in his grand jury testimony, Craig said: “Mr. Ruff answered directly, ‘He surely did.’ ”

Some constitutional experts think the Senate could compel Clinton to testify. Mark V. Tushnet, a constitutional law expert and associate dean of the Georgetown University Law Center, said the Senate could make that request “as a matter of constitutional principle” and that refusal to cooperate could be considered grounds for his removal from office.

But for Clinton and the House prosecutors, a decision over whether he should testify involves more than just legal questions.

It is rare enough for a president to testify in any legal proceeding. To subject a president to cross-examination as a witness in his impeachment trial would take the proceeding on a course that even the 1868 trial of Andrew Johnson, the only other president to be impeached, did not follow.

“Twenty years from now, it’s going to look like we lost our heads, subjecting the office of the presidency to this kind of process,” said one person close to Clinton.

The potential embarrassment of testifying before the Senate notwithstanding, Clinton emerged with a surge in public opinion polls after his testimony before the grand jury investigating his relationship with Monica S. Lewinsky was made public.

House Judiciary Committee Chairman Henry J. Hyde (R-Ill.) raised the prospect of presidential testimony on the eve of the trial. “I think we’re all interested in hearing from the president as a witness,” he said. “I don’t know anyone who wouldn’t be interested. The question is whether we should call him or not and that hasn’t been resolved.”

That set off a flurry of comments among senators, White House officials and others close to the process.

One of Clinton’s supporters likened Hyde’s suggestion to the outrageously high opening offer of a car salesman. Clinton’s name has been floated as a potential witness so that when the House prosecutors trim their list, removing Clinton and several others listed as potential witnesses, they will appear to be advocating a reasonable compromise, this supporter said.

John Czwartacki, a spokesman for Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott, said the Mississippi Republican had no comment on whether Clinton will be called. But he said: “It’s an interesting idea.”

But not among Clinton’s advisors.

“It’s just an effort by the Republicans to put their fingers in his eye,” said one. “He’s not going to do that and they know he’s not going to do that. He’s not going to subject himself to questions from 100 senators or let Bob Barr ask him questions.”

Barr, a Georgia Republican among the House prosecutors, was the first member of Congress to call for Clinton’s impeachment.

The Senate has made no decision about calling witnesses. It voted, 100 to 0, last Friday to delay a decision on whether to summon witnesses until both sides have completed their opening statements.

Clinton’s Schedule Doesn’t Include Trial

Clinton, meanwhile, labored under a schedule that aides presented as leaving him little time to watch the televised proceedings.

In the morning, he left the White House in a freezing rain to visit a police station across the Potomac River in Alexandria, Va., where he proposed a five-year, $6-billion package that would revive a community policing program he has long favored.

“It’ll be the best investment we can make in a safe future for our children and I hope we can pass it with your help,” the president said at the station house.

He spent the rest of the day out of view at the White House. Aides said he worked for at least an hour on the State of the Union address, scheduled to be delivered to a joint session of Congress on Tuesday evening, and meeting with senior economic advisors.