Judge Orders Lewinsky to Meet Prosecutors; Senate in Turmoil

A federal judge ordered Monica S. Lewinsky Saturday to cooperate with the House managers seeking President Clinton’s removal from office, prompting a storm of partisan fire from Senate Democrats at a critical juncture in the 2-week-old impeachment trial.

The 13 Republican managers who arranged an interview today with Lewinsky--the former White House intern’s first appearance in the Clinton impeachment spectacle--characterized the effort as basic preparation that is a part of every trial. “This is Lawyering 101,” said Paul McNulty, a spokesman for the prosecutors.

But as the question-and-answer phase wound up and the Senate appeared headed for bitter partisan clashes Monday on how to proceed with the trial, Democrats repeatedly grilled the prosecutors about the propriety of their back-channel contact with independent counsel Kenneth W. Starr, who filed a court motion to compel Lewinsky to talk.

“Don’t politicize the process in the Senate as you’ve politicized it in the House,” Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle (D-S.D.) scolded the managers at a press briefing.

White House Counsel Charles F.C. Ruff, arguing against the need for any additional testimony, condemned the behind-the-scenes outreach to Lewinsky as “one side using the might and majesty of the independent counsel’s office to threaten a witness.”

But Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott (R-Miss.) dismissed such complaints and later suggested that another key figure, Clinton, would be questioned. Lott said he and other senators were preparing written questions for Clinton that they intend to submit to the White House by Monday.

The day’s developments demonstrated once again the unpredictability of the impeachment process. Following the conclusion of the White House defense presentation, Sen. Robert C. Byrd (D-W.Va.) announced Friday that he would introduce a motion to dismiss the case entirely. While such a proposal appeared unlikely to overcome the Republicans’ 55-45 majority, even some GOP senators expressed a willingness to consider an early end to the proceedings.

But with news of the Starr-facilitated Lewinsky interview igniting partisan passions Saturday, all bets were off. Although senators continued to search for an exit that preserved the dignity of the proceedings, the controversy injected a powerful dose of partisan ill will, with Democrats exploding over the involvement of Starr and what they called overreaching on the part of Republican prosecutors.

It was at the request of Starr, who had up until now slipped into the background in the impeachment fight, that U.S. District Judge Norma Holloway Johnson issued an expedited decision compelling Lewinsky to undergo a debriefing by Starr’s aides and House prosecutors.

If Lewinsky declined, the judge ruled, she would forfeit the legal protection she received under an immunity agreement with Starr.

Within hours of the judge’s order, Lewinsky arrived in Washington from California. Today, she will have an informal session with prosecutors that will last a couple of hours, said David Schippers, the chief investigative counsel for Republicans on the House Judiciary Committee. He said Lewinsky would not be under oath. Her attorneys also will be present.

“We’ll just be sitting around, talking to her, very informally,” he said. “We’re just interested in what she’s going to say, what she could say and what new areas there might be out there.”

The questions will be presented by Starr’s office, Schippers said, adding that if the managers want more information, “then we will just give them the areas we want covered.”

Schippers said he expects no resistance from Lewinsky or her lawyers, who earlier had rebuffed an invitation from the managers.

“She’ll cooperate,” said Schippers. “Nobody wants to put this young woman in jail.”

At the trial’s outset, the senators agreed to put off a decision on the volatile issue of whether to call witnesses. With that vote scheduled for Monday, the House prosecutors wanted to interview Lewinsky today to buttress their argument that witnesses are needed in the trial.

First, however, senators will consider Byrd’s long-shot motion for dismissal.

But even that process became controversial Saturday. Lott angered many Democrats by floating a proposal to dispense with any debate on the crucial motions to dismiss the case and call witnesses. Under his plan, the House managers and the White House team would argue their positions--with the president’s lawyers supporting dismissal and the Republicans wanting to extend their case--and then the senators would vote on the proposals.

Ultimately, Republicans have the votes to adopt whichever rules they want. But the 55 GOP senators need significant Democratic support to reach the two-thirds margin required for conviction.

While some Republicans still have reservations about prolonging the trial by calling witnesses, at least one skeptic changed his mind, reducing chances that the motion to call witnesses could be blocked.

Sen. Gordon Smith (R-Ore.), who had said he did not see the need for witnesses, said Saturday that he would support a limited number of witnesses.

“I would rather err on the side of thorough rather than fast,” he said.

Still, the rhetoric was turned up high throughout the Capitol.

“The die has been cast,” said Sen. John F. Kerry (D-Mass.), condemning his GOP colleagues. “They have invited the division of the Senate and they have invited the condemnation of the American people. This is their trial, their proceeding.”

“We are in store for a phase here that may be partisan, but we knew that all along,” said John Czwartaki, Lott’s spokesman.

Republicans seem determined to push on with the current game plan, pledging to beat Byrd’s motion to dismiss the case and then call a limited number of witnesses.

“I feel that there is growing consensus we should have witnesses but they should be very, very limited in number and in scope. We’re debating where this trial is going,” said Sen. Mike DeWine (R-Ohio).

House managers have said they also would like to call Clinton’s secretary, Betty Currie, and his longtime friend Vernon E. Jordan Jr. They indicated Saturday night that they also were hoping to interview former Clinton advisor Dick Morris today.

Fuming over the outreach to Lewinsky, Democrats accused Rep. Henry J. Hyde (R-Ill.), head of the House prosecution team, of flouting a bipartisan agreement reached by senators at the onset of the trial to postpone the witness issue until this week.

“This is an outrageous thing,” said Sen. Patrick J. Leahy (D-Vt.). “We vote 100-to-nothing to work in a bipartisan fashion on witnesses, to have both sides be involved, and then suddenly to take this desperate act; all I can think is, they’re losing it.”

Senate Democrats sent a letter to Hyde calling on him to reconsider his decision to interview Lewinsky until the Senate has decided whether additional testimony is required.

“We insist that you take no action related to the proposed interview of any witness until such time as the Senate has given you the authority to do so,” the Democrats wrote.

But Hyde said he planned to proceed. “With all due respect to the Senate, the rules and the constitutional principles of bicameralism do not require that the House obtain the permission of the Senate merely to conduct an interview of a potential witness,” he wrote to Daschle.

Sen. Tom Harkin (D-Iowa) went further, writing to Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist to overrule the federal judge’s ruling allowing contact with Lewinsky. Harkin sought to deliver the letter to Rehnquist directly at the close of the proceedings but he instead gave it to a law clerk who agreed to pass it on.

Sen. Orrin G. Hatch (R-Utah) and other GOP senators, however, called the dispute over Lewinsky “a tempest in a teapot.”

“It’s absolutely right,” Hatch said of the judge’s decision. “It’s absolutely legal.”

Jacob Stein, one of Lewinsky’s attorneys, said her counselors felt that “requiring Ms. Lewinsky to appear at a private meeting excluding others was putting her in a clearly partisan position.”

But he added: “The judge has decided it, and, of course, we’ll comply with it.”

The slugfest over the merits of the impeachment case displayed the same vehemence as has characterized the trial from its start.

Hyde rose in frustration at one point to urge the Senate not to “sell out” for political expediency.

“Despite all the polls and hostile editorials, America is hungry for people who believe in something,” Hyde fumed. “You may disagree with us. But we believe in something.”

In all, more than 100 questions flew back and forth during a two-day blitz.

Frequently, prosecutors found themselves on the defensive as they were peppered with questions from Democratic senators on the proposed Lewinsky meeting.

“It has nothing to do with the formal proceeding of taking the deposition,” said Rep. Bill McCollum (R-Fla.), who characterized the interview as a chance to shake hands with Lewinsky and get to know a woman who may be called to testify.

Times Washington Bureau Chief Doyle McManus and staff writers Geraldine Baum and Robert L. Jackson contributed to this story.

* RETURN OF LEWINSKY: Ex-intern is pulled from L.A., where’s she writing a book, back to scandal central. A12

* KEEPING PRESSURE ON: Pro- and anti-impeachment groups are keeping a close eye on senators. A13