January 6, 1999

Clinton's Worst Case

As the nation's capital experienced a lull in madness last week -- only because few were working -- the impeachment gang had trouble getting in synch and preparing for the second impeachment trial in U.S. history. While the House-appointed managers, those Republican representatives who will prosecute the case, discussed a full-blown Senate trial with a star-studded line-up of witnesses, Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott was angling for a quick no-muss/no-fuss proceeding that would require less than a fortnight -- a position that peeved his conservative comrades in the Senate -- and other senators staked out competing positions on censure. The rush to a lickety-split trial is a bit nutty. But, then, this latest chapter overruns with oddity. In the impeachment trial, the jury (the Senate, that is) gets to write the rules and say whether witnesses can be called. The prosecutors will be presenting a case they never truly investigated. None of them interviewed the main witnesses. They merely reviewed the evidence and testimony gathered by Kenneth Starr. Will they be ready to march into the trial of the century (sorry, O.J.) next week without having acquired extensive first-hand knowledge of the case and the witnesses? Yes, let's see Representative Bob Barr put Monica Lewinsky on the stand without pre-trial practice. (Barr displayed his full boobishness last week when he remarked, "A senator's attention span is probably less than an average juror's, so we'll need to simplify, simplify, simplify." What a great trial strategy; insult the jury.) It's not unreasonable to assert that an impeachment trial deserves as much time as budget deliberations, which typically require much longer than the eleven days Lott wants to reserve for this momentous event.

Once class is back in session, the process will be de-kinked. But there probably are a few surprises to come, in addition to Larry Flynt's bolts from the blue. To prepare for one possible dramatic turn, consider for a moment the following questions: What if Bill Clinton conspired to obstruct justice to cover up not consensual sex but a rape he once committed? Would that change the political equation of impeachment? These are questions some Republican managers have been contemplating seriously.

As nasty as the impeachment crusade has been, there is the potential for it to become nastier. After the House Republicans approved two of four articles of impeachment, Majority Whip Tom DeLay publicly hinted that the House Judiciary Committee possessed confidential evidence that would make any senator shudder. Read it, he urged, before reaching an opinion on impeachment. DeLay was roundly and deservedly criticized for his heavy-handed attempt to end-run the proceedings against Clinton, and he wisely shut up. But that was not the end of this, for some Republicans, according to House Committee Judiciary sources, last week were still considering exploiting the material DeLay found so alarming.

The information DeLay had in mind concerned an accusation -- unproved so far -- that in 1978 Bill Clinton sexually assaulted a woman and caused her bodily harm. This allegation became public earlier this year when lawyers for Paula Jones made public a 1992 letter written to the alleged victim. The letter referred to the incident and an unsuccessful try by Clinton foes to encourage the woman to tell all before the 1992 election. Several media outfits ran stories on the letter, and Clinton defenders and others criticized the Jones team for sliming the President with unconfirmed charges. They pointed to a January 2, 1998 affidavit filed by the woman, who in the Jones case was dubbed Jane Doe #5. In real life, as has been widely reported in the media and on the Internet, her name is Juanita Broaddrick.

In her affidavit, Broaddrick noted, "In November of 1997, two private investigators retained by Paula Corbin Jones approached me at my residence. I declined to speak with them, but provided the name of my family attorney. I subsequently was served with a subpoena seeking the production of documents and purporting to require my testimony at a deposition in the civil action between Paula Corbin Jones and President William Jefferson Clinton." She claimed in the affidavit that she possessed no knowledge of the President's interaction with Jones. She reported that she had met Clinton more than twenty years ago, though a friend, and that during the 1992 presidential campaign "unfounded rumors and stories circulated that Mr. Clinton had made unwelcome sexual advances toward me in the late seventies." Reporters pestered her, she said, and she repeatedly denied the stories. "I do not have any information to offer regarding a nonconsensual or unwelcome sexual advance by Mr. Clinton," her affidavit declared.

It was a straightforward statement on her part -- and it seemed to put one more piece of anti-Clinton gossip to rest. Until independent counsel Kenneth Starr' released his report. Buried in that much-scrutinized document was a parenthetical sentence that read, "On April 8, 1998, however, Jane Doe #5 stated to OIC [Office of Independent Counsel] investigators that this affidavit was false." Did that mean Broaddrick was now maintaining that the rape did occur? Did that suggest she was asked by someone to submit an inaccurate statement?

Starr, who should not be taken at face value, did not elaborate -- and his report contained no evidence Clinton was behind the false affidavit. But this one sentence, which has fired the imagination of Clinton-chasers, poses possible trouble for Clinton in the coming trial. At the same time, it is dynamite ammunition that could blow up in the face of his Republican antagonists. The "obstruction of justice" article of impeachment passed by the House accused Clinton of having "prevented, obstructed, and impeded the administration of justice" by having "engaged personally, and through his subordinates and agents, in a course of conduct or scheme designed to delay, impede, cover up, and conceal the existence of evidence and testimony related to a Federal civil rights action brought against him in a duly instituted judicial proceeding." The seven specific acts cited in the article were each Monica-related. But the article was written broadly enough to cover any effort Clinton may have made improperly to undermine or prevent the introduction of other incriminating information in the Jones case. Consequently, if the impeachment managers possess evidence that Clinton was involved in the creation or submission of Broaddrick's false affidavit (say, by encouraging her to file it or by leaning on Broaddrick), they can raise this dicey matter at the trial.

Republican investigators for the House Judiciary Committee have interviewed Broaddrick, according to committee sources. Although Democrats on the committee were informed early last week by the Republicans that the GOPers had put aside the issue, Republican impeachment managers were still discussing the possibility that the Broaddrick bomb might be hurled.

For the Republicans to launch such a strike would be dangerous -- beyond nuclear. Imagine if, in the middle of an already highly-charged impeachment trial, Henry Hyde and his Not-so-Merry Band openly accused Clinton of having once raped a woman. To prove that Broaddrick's affidavit was false, they would have to delve into the details of a two-decade-old he said/she said episode. That would be tricky. The Republicans would be compelled to present evidence of what happened, perhaps call Broaddrick and others to testify. (The one-time friend of Broaddrick who wrote the 1992 letter claimed to have spoken to another woman who could confirm the assault. Yet Democrats who have looked at the allegation say the charges can be knocked down.)

Then -- since the main question at hand would be whether Clinton obstructed justice, not how he behaved 20 years ago -- the GOP trial managers would have to demonstrate that Clinton had a hand in Broaddrick's filing of a false affidavit. No evidence of such skullduggery has yet emerged, and this likely would be a difficult case to prove. Assume the assault did occur. Broaddrick might have submitted a false affidavit for reasons entirely of her own. Perhaps she was scared to tell the truth, for fear she would be trashed in public by Clinton loyalists. Maybe she and her husband had decided on their own that the best course was denial. The burden would be on the Republicans to show beyond doubt that Clinton himself schemed to stop Broaddrick from providing truthful information in the Jones trial. All of this would make the Clarence Thomas hearings seem like a picnic. Broaddrick, by the way, did not respond to an interview request.

There is another way in which the Republican impeachment crew might try to use this slice of scandal: in an ex officio whispering campaign. If the GOPers do not have the goods or the stomach to make the Broaddrick matter part of the official trial, they could in a more informal and quiet manner spread the material to persuade senators to go hard on Clinton. That's what DeLay has tried to do. Such a smear-the-accused course is not without peril, for it would amount to jury tampering. In a criminal trial, a prosecutor is not allowed to present one case in public and then privately share the juicy stuff with the jury.

The introduction of the Broaddrick case into the Senate trial would render Monicagate even more sordid. There's no indication that Lott and his fellow Republicans want to explore such seedy territory. And how might the public respond? Would it further turn on the Republicans for dishing the most awful of dirt? This accusation goes far beyond cigars and silly gifts. Or could this be the GOP's great hope? For years -- even before Monicagate -- Republicans and conservatives have been waiting, looking, and yearning for that one development, that one knock-out blow, that would drop Clinton the Invulnerable. Do the die-hard Clinton-haters believe they have finally found their secret weapon? Can they resist the lure of such an allegation?

Would support for Clinton free-fall if the Republicans could show that he smothered information regarding an alleged sexual assault, not an intern fling? Would the Clintonistas and the anti-impeachment crowd -- James Carville, the 400 historians, the House Democrats, Jesse Jackson, Geraldo Rivera -- still stand by him? Those who argue for impeachment would have a stronger case if the President improperly connived to block evidence of a past criminal deed.

As the Senate jury and the House impeachment managers ready for trial, much is uncertain about how the case will proceed. But that one line in the Starr report, DeLay's clumsy effort to take advantage of the Broaddrick-related allegations, and whispers from other Republicans intrigued by the matter together suggest that the Monica mess could become messier. If desperate Republicans do push the Broaddrick material, overtly or covertly, then the trial may come to show that the GOP is even crazier in its get-Clinton obsession than the public realized or that Clinton is even more of a hound than now believed -- propositions, of course, that are not mutually exclusive.

-- David Corn