White House Legal Team Faces a Quandary Over Witness Issue

Throughout the year of scandal that has enveloped the White House, President Clinton has faced nasty choices.

But as the Senate prepares to interview witnesses in the president’s impeachment trial, the potential quandary between the most aggressive legal course and the politically sound route is as stark as it ever has been.

Of paramount importance to the White House is reserving the right to call its own witnesses if a round of depositions--questioning of former intern Monica S. Lewinsky, Clinton confidant Vernon E. Jordan Jr. and White House aide Sidney Blumenthal--breaks new ground.

Also weighing on the White House and its supporters is the concern, expressed Wednesday by Clinton aides and outside legal advisors, that House prosecutors will not stop at closed-door testimony by those three, but will push for their live testimony in the Senate chamber and seek additional witnesses as well.

“It is inconceivable to me [that] the House managers will be satisfied with any amount of discovery or any number of witnesses,” said Richard Ben-Veniste, an outside White House advisor and former Watergate prosecutor. “The strategy appears obvious to me that they will do anything within their power to keep the pot boiling, because as soon as the fire goes out, they lose--and justifiably so.”

Reviewing Documents Presents Time Problem

Also unresolved is how insistent the White House team should be in seeking documents amassed by independent counsel Kenneth W. Starr, to which the House managers have had access. Reviewing the 50,000 or so pages of material could drag the case on for weeks.

In a conventional trial, the defense has access to all the documents developed by the prosecution, as well the right to call its own witnesses. But in demanding these prerogatives at this stage, the White House would risk being seen as responsible for prolonging a process with which the nation has grown weary.

White House Press Secretary Joe Lockhart complained: “The White House lawyers will not be ready to adequately serve their part in this process, as a defense, before they have had a chance to have the field leveled, before they have a chance to see the documents that the House managers have had for the last five months.”

To the suggestion that the White House was bluffing, that the administration has no interest in dragging out the case, the spokesman replied: “There comes a point where basic fairness overcomes our desire and the country’s desire to wrap this thing up.”

In short, Clinton’s lawyers, spokesmen and allies in the Senate are insisting that they retain the right to pursue additional exculpatory records and testimony on the president’s behalf--the conventional legal route.

But they recognize that, with sufficient votes to block conviction in the Senate, the most politically palatable course is to avoid a drawn-out process so the Senate can quickly reach a final vote.

“They are on the horns of a dilemma,” said one Democratic veteran who advises the White House on political matters. “Do they want to extend this for another two or three weeks? No. So they’ve got to figure out what they do. If something goes sour, do they ask for more time? I don’t know.”

Sen. Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.) said that Democrats defending Clinton in the Senate also face competing goals. “One, to be fair to the president. Two, to end this as quickly as possible.”

A Delicate Balancing Act

But, he said that Clinton’s supporters in Congress are reluctant to lean too heavily on the Clinton team, because “it’s a delicate thing to tell the White House to forgo some of their rights.”

Sen. John B. Breaux (D-La.), suggested that the White House lawyers ask for additional time only if the three depositions produce new information. If there are no surprises, he said, the White House lawyers should only ask for time to cross-examine the witnesses.

The Senate hopes to decide today how and when the interviews will be conducted.

If the president’s legal team wins the right to call witnesses after the three testify and to obtain Starr’s records and other documents, the White House likely would agree to the Senate timetable of completing the depositions next week.

Under those terms, the White House would be expected to call its own witnesses and seek other documents only if Lewinsky, Jordan or Blumenthal provide testimony that contradicts their earlier statements or if they offer new information damaging to the president.

Possibility of Calling Starr or Tripp

If, on the other hand, the White House is required to submit witnesses or document requests before the three depositions are given, the president’s lawyers prospectively might submit a wide-ranging request for documents and additional witnesses that might long delay a resolution.

The White House then would be faced with the choice of seeking to call, among others, Starr or Linda Tripp, who disclosed to Starr’s prosecutors Clinton’s relationship with Lewinsky.

If Starr is questioned, Clinton’s lawyers likely would focus on how the independent counsel shifted an examination of Clinton’s finances in Arkansas into an inquiry built around an extramarital affair, and what one Clinton advisor called “an investigation in search of a crime.”

Times staff writers Janet Hook and Elizabeth Shogren contributed to this story.