Jordan's testimony elicits no surprises

WASHINGTON - A House prosecutor grilled attorney Vernon Jordan for nearly three hours yesterday about his dealings with President Clinton and Monica Lewinsky, while senators began studying videotapes of her deposition as they decide whether to call witnesses at the president's impeachment trial.

Jordan, the close Clinton friend who helped find Lewinsky a New York job and a lawyer in the Paula Jones case, provided some new information during occasionally contentious questioning by Rep. Asa Hutchinson (R-Ark.) but no explosive revelations, according to several sources familiar with his testimony.

In one key exchange, the sources said, Jordan now remembered having breakfast with Lewinsky on New Year's Eve in 1997, an important encounter he flatly denied in grand jury testimony last year before she began cooperating with independent counsel Kenneth Starr. But Jordan adamantly denied telling the former White House intern during their meal that she should go home and destroy any copies or drafts of notes she had sent Clinton that might establish the affair both would later deny under oath.

Just as they did not question Lewinsky a day before, White House lawyers in attendance yesterday felt confident enough in Clinton's prospects for acquittal that they did not cross-examine Jordan at length either, instead asking only a couple of open-ended questions, according to sources.

Still, the chief House trial manager, Rep. Henry Hyde (R-Ill.), said afterward that he was pleased with the two depositions conducted so far because they will help "to advance the cause of impeachment (and) conviction."

"We have got some amplifications and we have straightened out some points," he said. Although a final deposition will be taken of White House aide Sidney Blumenthal today, Hyde added that he was not waiting for any smoking guns to emerge. "We never felt we needed any bombshells to have a compelling case. What we need is to validate the record that already exists under oath about obstruction of justice and perjury. And that is being accomplished."

While Hutchinson quizzed Jordan in a secure fourth-floor room normally used for national security matters, elsewhere in the Capitol senators privately reviewed transcripts and videotapes of Lewinsky's Monday deposition. Senators on both sides of the aisle concurred that she was impressive, but they split sharply on whether her latest testimony made it more likely that she would be summoned to testify in person when the trial reconvenes tomorrow.

"She appears young, very vulnerable and credible," said Sen. Orrin G. Hatch (R-Utah). "She'd make an effective witnesses, and the American people should be given that right" to hear her. "I think she's come across very credibly."

Yet several other Republican senators were more skeptical, raising doubts about whether a majority would support live testimony given the certainty of near-universal opposition from Democrats, who hold 45 of 100 seats.

Sen. James Jeffords ( R-Vt.) said he was "surprised that she seemed all together, intelligent," but added that "at this point, I don't see any reason to call her" before the Senate. "She just substantiated her earlier statements." Sen. Robert F. Bennett (R-Utah) was briefed on her deposition by his staff and told "there is nothing new. If in fact there is nothing new, I suspect she wouldn't be called." And Sen. Olympia Snowe (R-Maine) said that "if nothing dramatically changes ... I don't think there would be any point" in calling witnesses.

The likely alternative to live testimony would be a vote by the Senate to authorize both prosecution and defense to use specific portions of the deposition videotapes as part of their closing arguments.

Under such a scenario, the Senate could meet its Feb. 12 target for completing the trial, although Hyde said he believed that deadline could hold even with live testimony.

Senators were still struggling, however, with how to wrap up the trial. In behind-the-scenes talks, Republican leaders reported growing support among their members for a "finding of facts" that would detail alleged Clinton misconduct in anticipation of a final vote acquitting him of the two articles of impeachment charging perjury and obstruction of justice.

"I think it's fair to say that momentum is gathering for a findings of fact," Senate Republican Conference Chairman Connie Mack (R-Fla.) said after the issue was discussed, inconclusively, at the Senate GOP's weekly luncheon. "Support is growing but it's mixed," both in terms of whether to do it and what it might say, said Jeffords.

Republicans are divided over whether to rally behind a lengthy, highly specific statement or a shorter, simpler version that might pick up some Democratic support and thereby put a gloss of a bipartisanship on the bill of particulars condemning Clinton's conduct. A GOP task force appointed by Majority Leader Trent Lott (R-Miss.) met Tuesday morning and hopes to have a couple of drafts ready for a Republican conference planned for today to discuss whether to go ahead and, if so, the details of the plan.

Snowe, one of the leaders of the task force, said she favors the simple approach because the concept would work only with endorsements from both parties. "There's no point having another party-line vote," she said. "I think that's not the purpose here. The purpose here is to recognize at least that the United States Senate within the court of impeachment (believes) that the president did commit wrongdoing."

Many Democrats have joined the White House in condemning the idea as unconstitutional. So far, Sen. Joseph Lieberman (D-Conn.), has been one of the few Democrats to express any interest.

Still, Democrats are wary of appearing to condone Clinton's actions. Sen. Robert C. Byrd (D-W.Va.), who sponsored last week's unsuccessful motion to dismiss the case, nonetheless told CNN yesterday that "there's no question" that Clinton testified falsely under oath even if he did not commit perjury in a "strict legal sense."

"For the chief executive to give false testimony under oath willingly, knowingly and intentionally and repeatedly, certainly to me gets awfully close to abusing and violating the public trust and trust in the judicial system," Byrd said.

02-03-99