PRESIDENT CLINTON ISN’T DEAD YET. A prosecutable case against him will be difficult to make, since it may come down to the word of 24-year-old Monica Lewinsky against the denials of Clinton and Washington lawyer Vernon Jordan. Chances are, the president will survive the three final years of his second term. But just barely. The Clinton presidency as we know it is gone. If the Lewinsky case and its ramifications don’t overwhelm Clinton’s agenda, the Paula Jones trial will. Clinton’s popularity, already slipping, is likely to drop like a brick. His clout with Congress and the political community and the media is rapidly evaporating. So the stage is set for Republicans to make significant gains in the November election against demoralized Democrats, stuck with a president they won’t want to rally behind or even acknowledge.
But impeachment? Don’t hold your breath. At the moment, independent counsel Kenneth Starr has only one strong piece of evidence against Clinton — the allegations on tape of Monica Lewinsky — and he needs another. The tape includes Lewinsky’s talk of an affair with Clinton and her insistence the president and Jordan advised her to deny this under oath. Incriminating as this is, the tape alone won’t bring down Clinton. Starr needs Lewinsky as a live witness willing to repeat everything she said on the tape, and more, to a federal grand jury. But he hasn’t got her yet.
Starr had no reason to be encouraged by the initial negotiations with Lewinsky lawyer William Ginsburg, by Ginsburg’s later criticism of Starr’s tactics, or by the brush-off his office got from a Ginsburg associate on January 23. In negotiations with Starr, Ginsburg wants full immunity from prosecution for Lewinsky. In exchange, he’s offered only the skimpiest idea of what she might tell the grand jury. She would testify she told Jordan of her sexual relationship with Clinton, contrary to Jordan’s story. But the lawyer said Lewinsky would not assert anyone had told her to lie, contradicting what she says on tape.
Starr rejected this offer and asked that she sit down for several hours of interrogation with his investigators. Afterwards, he would decide if she had useful testimony and, if so, seek an ironclad agreement on what she’d tell the grand jury. Starr doesn’t want a repeat of the Webb Hubbell episode, in which the Clinton pal arranged a plea bargain, then didn’t deliver the expected testimony implicating Clinton. In exchange for Lewinsky’s testimony, Starr said he’d seek leniency in her own legal difficulties. On tape, she allegedly urges her friend Linda Tripp to give false testimony in a deposition in the Paula Jones sexual-harassment suit against Clinton. That would be a felony.
If Lewinsky comes around, perhaps after Starr drops the idea of prosecuting her, the independent counsel still won’t have a slam-dunk case of obstruction of justice against Clinton. In his public statements, the president is vague about his relationship with Lewinsky, but he’s flatly denied urging anyone to lie. Jordan has denied the charge even more strenuously. That would leave Starr with one witness, a young woman once infatuated with Clinton, who disputes the word of the president and Washington’s leading black attorney. Would Democrats join an impeachment drive in that circumstance? I’m not betting on it, but Democrats are beginning to waver. “I don’t think the president can survive” if the allegations prove true, pro-Clinton Rep. Henry Waxman, D-Calif., told Fox News Channel. This is important because Rep. Henry Hyde, the chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, believes any impeachment would have to be bipartisan.
There’s a worst-case scenario for Starr: a refusal by Lewinsky to testify. Suppose she claims she fabricated the whole story about Clinton and sex and perjury. That wouldn’t be very credible, but it would cripple the case against Clinton nonetheless. Starr’s only recourse would be to prosecute her for perjury and obstruction of justice in hopes a conviction might change her mind. At the same time, Starr would come under withering attacks from Clinton’s defenders, who’d zing him for persecuting a naive young woman and obsessing on Clinton’s sex life. The president would escape impeachment, but he’d still have some serious explaining to do. If Lewinsky truly concocted the whole tale, why didn’t Clinton simply say that instantly and explain the nature of his relationship with her? And why didn’t he immediately release the Secret Service records if they show no visits by her or only visits to other people at the White House? My guess is he first wants to know what tack Lewinsky is taking. If she’s on his side, he doesn’t want to contradict even the smallest detail in her account.
Whatever Clinton’s fate, the political environment has changed dramatically. Assume, as I do, the president hangs on. His misery will continue. The Lewinsky case will linger for months, as witnesses such as Jordan are hauled before the grand jury in Washington. Reporters will pursue the scores of fresh leads suddenly laid in their path. Who wrote the talking points that Lewinsky gave to Tripp, outlining how Tripp should give false testimony? Who were the three other White House employees who Lewinsky supposedly claims on tape were paramours of Clinton? And so on. Then, in May, the trial of the century begins in Arkansas, pitting Paula Jones against Clinton, with sex as the subject matter. Maybe worse, hours of Lewinsky’s taped conversations are sure to become public.
All of which presents Republicans with an incredible opportunity. Back in Watergate days, Democrats exploited President Nixon’s weakness to enact the War Powers Act, create a new budget process, and jack up spending. Now, if Republicans don’t screw up, they can substitute much of their agenda for Clinton’s: a ban on partial-birth abortion, a serious tax cut for individuals, a child-care bill far different from the one envisioned by the Clinton administration, a more aggressive stand against liberal judges and judicial nominees. And that’s only for starters. The opening is there, so long as Republicans don’t get sidetracked with intra-party squabbles over impeachment.
A final opportunity comes in November. Pre-Monica, Republicans stood to make solid gains in the House and Senate, while holding their own in governorships. Now, the size of their potential gains has multiplied. It’s not because Republicans are so smart and deserving. It’s because Democrats are devastated over Clinton’s troubles and likely to stay that way. Traditionally, the party in the White House suffers big-time at the polls in the sixth year of a presidency. But for the six-year itch to work, something has to act as catalyst. In 1974, it was Watergate, which didn’t boost Democratic turnout but kept millions of disillusioned Republicans from voting. This time, the catalyst is named Monica.
Fred Barnes is executive editor of THE WEEKLY STANDARD.
