Senate Expected to Allow Questioning of 3 Witnesses

House prosecutors unveiled a trimmed-down witness list Tuesday that is expected to win Senate approval on a party-line vote today and lead to closed-door questioning of Monica S. Lewinsky and two others in the impeachment trial of President Clinton.

The House managers, who once had considered seeking the testimony of as many as 15 witnesses, argued vehemently that testimony from Lewinsky, presidential confidant Vernon E. Jordan Jr. and White House communications aide Sidney Blumenthal was the bare minimum required to allow senators to judge the perjury and obstruction of justice allegations against the president.

To ease anxious senators worried about sullying the dignity of their institution, the prosecutors stressed that they intend to question Lewinsky, the most celebrated of the potential witnesses, without delving into the salacious details of her affair with the president.

In a surprise move, prosecutors dropped presidential secretary Betty Currie from their list in an effort to win the support of more senators.

“We have a good case--we have an excellent case--without the witnesses, but the witnesses help you,” House Judiciary Committee Chairman Henry J. Hyde (R-Ill.) said as the issue was argued Tuesday on the Senate floor.

“We have narrowed it down to three, a pitiful three,” he added.

The president’s defense team argued that the three witnesses would not add to the already exhaustive record compiled by independent counsel Kenneth W. Starr and relied on when the House passed the impeachment articles against Clinton last month.

Clinton attorney David E. Kendall noted pointedly that Hyde and others on the prosecution team had argued during the House hearings that Starr’s extensive inquiry was enough to warrant the president’s impeachment.

He likened the House prosecutors to blackjack players gambling recklessly to better a losing hand. “The managers’ hope to add more witnesses is simply their desire, their hope, their prayer that something will come to rescue their case,” he said.

Senate Retreats to Closed Session

After hearing a spirited White House rebuttal, senators retreated into closed session for about 3 1/2 hours Tuesday night to debate the witness issue, with the vote on it and a proposal to dismiss the entire case scheduled for this afternoon.

Senators are legally prohibited from commenting on their closed sessions. But some left the meeting hinting that the two parties were working to reach a compromise on procedures that would limit the witness testimony to videotaped depositions, avoid bringing the witnesses into the Senate chamber and possibly set a date certain for ending the deposition process.

“There are efforts to see if we can’t reach some kind of a compromise over how we might end this, including the endgame,” said Sen. John F. Kerry (D-Mass.).

If--as is widely anticipated by senators of both parties--the dismissal motion fails and the witness list is approved, the House prosecutors would conduct closed-door depositions of Lewinsky, Jordan and Blumenthal in coming days. White House attorneys would be present to conduct cross-examination and a small bipartisan group of senators may monitor the questioning.

Then, prosecutors would return to the Senate to urge live testimony from the three witnesses before the 100 senators, a request requiring a follow-up vote.

Just how the deposition of witnesses would affect the length of the trial remains hotly contested. White House lawyers raised the possibility of much-delayed proceedings that could stretch on for months. But Republican senators, characterizing such remarks as empty threats, floated proposals to curb the questioning so that the trial would wrap up in a matter of days or weeks.

Lewinsky Called the Key Witness

The prosecution team appended a fourth name to its list--that of Clinton himself--but merely encouraged the Senate to seek his testimony, rather than formally requesting it. The White House quickly shot down the possibility of Clinton testifying in his defense.

House prosecutors contended that Lewinsky was the key witness in the case, one whose testimony challenges the president’s on key matters and ought to be judged face-to-face by the Senate.

Plato Cacheris, Lewinsky’s Washington attorney, said that--although his client is not anxious to submit to questions in the impeachment trial--she “will do what she has to do.”

Lewinsky provided detailed testimony about her relationship with Clinton last summer to a federal grand jury convened by Starr. Responding to an order from a federal judge, she returned to Washington from her Beverly Hills home last weekend for an informal “debriefing” with House prosecutors. She departed Tuesday shortly after the managers released their witness list. Cacheris declined to say where she had gone.

Prosecutors said that testimony from Jordan and Blumenthal would buttress their obstruction-of-justice charge against Clinton.

Jordan helped Lewinsky find a position in New York City, a job that she ultimately turned down. The prosecutors allege that Clinton orchestrated a job search for Lewinsky to ensure that she would deny their affair when she was called to testify in the Paula Corbin Jones sexual harassment case against the president.

Blumenthal was one of the first aides to whom Clinton denied a sexual relationship with Lewinsky. The White House official repeated that denial in testimony to the Starr grand jury.

House prosecutors said that they reluctantly dropped Currie from their list. Although she hid gifts to Lewinsky from Clinton that the former White House intern returned--at the president’s request, prosecutors assert, to mask their affair--prosecutors decided that Jordan could offer more compelling testimony about the alleged obstruction.

For several days, a handful of Republican senators has been expressing skepticism about the need for witnesses. But on Tuesday, senators from both parties were predicting that enough Republicans would back the witness request to assure its passage.

Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle (D-S.D.), asked Tuesday about the so-called “soft Republicans,” said it appeared that they “have now hardened” on the witness issue.

The expected coalescence by the GOP senators would come even as some Republicans concede that it could work to the party’s long-term political disadvantage. The move likely will invite Democrats to portray Republicans as responsible for protracting an impeachment process that polls show the public soured on long ago.

GOP Is Reluctant to Exclude Testimony

Despite that, many GOP senators are reluctant to rule out witnesses entirely for a variety of reasons--fear of undercutting their House Republican colleagues, alienating their conservative base and setting a bad precedent for giving short shrift to witnesses in future impeachment trials.

Throughout Tuesday, key swing votes among the Senate’s 55 Republicans tipped in favor of calling witnesses after a closed-door party caucus where the lawmakers were assured that House managers were willing to pare down their list and limit the time they would take for the depositions.

“I have no hesitancy in supporting it,” said Sen. Slade Gorton (R-Wash.), who had been the leading GOP opponent of witnesses.

“The motion to call witnesses will pass,” said Sen. Robert F. Bennett (R-Utah), who had been a fence sitter. He said that he was inclined to support the managers’ request because “there’s a degree of form to it, discipline--a limited number of witnesses, limited time.”

Limiting the number of witnesses gives House Republicans “a terrific advantage,” said Sen. John H. Chafee (R-R.I.), a moderate whom Clinton allies had once hoped would cross party lines on the issue. “I have a heavy tilt” in favor of witnesses now, Chafee said.

Before deciding the witness issue today, senators are scheduled to vote on the motion to dismiss the case, introduced Monday by Sen. Robert C. Byrd (D-W.Va.). That motion, expected to lose on a virtual party-line vote, was debated by senators Monday night behind closed doors.

Although forbidden to discuss the substance of such discussions, several senators on Tuesday said that the secret deliberations helped ease the partisan tensions that have hung over the proceedings since the start.

“When you shut the cameras off, you can really get to the core of the issue,” said Sen. Charles Hagel (R-Neb.).

At the same time, however, the closed-door debate has not been quite the free-wheeling, let-down-your-hair kind of discussion that some might envision. The argument is fairly structured, with Democrats and Republicans speaking in turn and Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist presiding, senators said.

Tuesday’s vote on witness depositions will not completely resolve the testimony issue. The House managers made clear during their arguments Tuesday that they believe the witnesses will need to be summoned to the Senate chamber later for live testimony.

“Wouldn’t you want to observe the demeanor of Miss Lewinsky and test her credibility?” Rep. Ed Bryant (R-Tenn.) asked the senators. “Look into her eyes?”

Along with their witness request, House managers sought to add three pieces of new evidence to the record: two affidavits from Barry Ward, a law clerk to U.S. District Judge Susan Webber Wright, and T. Wesley Holmes, an attorney for Jones; and telephone records documenting a 56-minute conversation on Dec. 6, 1997, between Lewinsky and the president.

House prosecutors said that Ward’s statement indicates Clinton was paying attention during his deposition in Jones’ lawsuit when his lawyer, Robert S. Bennett, denied that Clinton and Lewinsky had engaged in sex. Clinton maintained, in sworn testimony to the grand jury this summer, that he was not closely following the discussion between Bennett and Wright.

Holmes, meanwhile, will offer testimony saying that Currie was called as a witness partly because Clinton brought up her name during his testimony in the Jones case. That point is significant because prosecutors allege that Clinton later sought to influence her testimony through a series of leading statements, some clearly false.

The telephone call, prosecutors said, came at a key moment, when Lewinsky’s name was emerging as a possible witness in the Jones case.

Although many Republicans were persuaded to support witnesses based on assurances that it would not add more than a week or two to the trial, Clinton’s defenders warned that they would demand more time for the White House to respond and possibly call witnesses of its own.

‘Short Time’ for Witnesses Unrealistic

“It is unrealistic to expect you can go down the path of witnesses in a very short time,” said Jim Kennedy, a spokesman for the White House counsel’s office. “You have to look at what is fair for the person being charged.”

Daschle said that presidential lawyers should be able to depose witnesses, review the tens of thousands of pages of evidence held by the House Judiciary Committee that they have not yet been able to review and have an opportunity to call witnesses of their own.

Senate Republicans seemed unfazed by the House prosecutors’ decision to include a request for testimony from Clinton.

A top aide to Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott (R-Miss.) said that Republicans were divided on the question of whether the Senate constitutionally could subpoena the president.

Times staff writers James Gerstenzang and Robert L. Jackson contributed to this story.

Watch live video coverage of the Senate impeachment trial today on The Times’ Web site. Coverage is scheduled to begin at 10 a.m. PST: https://www.latimes.com/impeach

THE CASE FOR TESTIMONY

Monica S. Lewinsky

Lewinsky’s testimony about her relationship with the president differs in a few key areas with the testimony given by Clinton. House managers said Lewinsky would make a credible witness and that her testimony is crucial.

Vernon E. Jordan, Jr.

Clinton sought Jordan’s help in finding a job for Lewinsky. House prosecutors said testimony from Jordan would buttress their argument that Clinton orchestrated the job search as part of a scheme in which Lewinsky would deny their relationship.

Sidney Blumenthal

House managers say the president obstructed justice by lying to Blumenthal and other aides about the relationship, knowing that they might be called to testify before the grand jury.