by John M. Curtis
(310) 204-8700

Copyright January 15, 1998
All Rights Reserved.

itting the latest sink-hole, an otherwise glib but rattled President Clinton told mild-mannered Jim Lehr of PBS’s NewsHour, "That [he had an affair with Monica Lewinsky and told her to lie in her interrogatory and future deposition in the Paula Corbin Jones affair] is not true. I did not ask anyone to tell anything other than the truth. There is no improper relationship. And I intend to cooperate with this inquiry. But that is not true" (the italics refer to carefully inserted words deliberately designed to create ambiguity). On closer inspection, President Clinton has chosen his words wisely, having been well coached by his coterie of damage control consultants. His remarks to Mr. Lehr weren’t as spontaneous as they might seem.

       The initial "that" doesn’t really deny that he had an affair with Monica Lewinsky; the "tell" doesn’t mean he didn’t discuss the advisability of admitting their tryst under oath or otherwise; the verb tense "is" suggests that nothing improper is currently going on; the word "improper" doesn’t rule out a consensual sexual relationship; the word "cooperate" implies that he’s not covering up or stonewalling; and the last "that" is entirely ambiguous and makes no reference to what’s not true. Although many of the current allegations remain a quantum leap from possible impeachment hearings, Clinton’s body language and words during the Lehr interview were strangely inconsistent with his own press secretary’s remarks.

       Responding a day earlier to this late-breaking story, "The President is outraged by these charges," said press secretary Mike McCurry, issuing a forceful categorical denial. After burning the midnight oil, an uncharacteristically defensive Mike McCurry offered a more carefully prepared and measured statement, "President Clinton denies having any improper relationship." Leaving reporters in a veritable frenzy, McCurry wouldn’t elaborate on what was meant by "improper" or whether, in fact, President Clinton ever had any relationship with former White House intern, Monica Lewinsky. When further elaboration wasn’t forthcoming, reporters were left to speculate that Mr. McCurry’s comments were carefully scripted by the President’s legal team, especially Robert Bennett. Responding to a flurry of the same questions at the most recent press conference, Mr. McCurry is now saying, "He’s not at liberty to comment [via court order] about any matters connected with President Clinton’s lengthy deposition in the Paula Corbin Jones’ case."

       Trotting out of his office and sucking up a little wind, the usually garrulous Robert Bennett said, "I smell a rat," suggesting, of course, as he has with the Paula Corbin Jones’ affair, that this current scandal was an artifact of a sinister right-wing political conspiracy. Echoing these sentiments, a stressed but feisty Hillary Rodham Clinton said, "It’s time to stop using these types of events to advance a political agenda." While conspiracy theories seem farfetched to some, many are wondering how Whitewater special counsel Kenneth Starr’s writ was extended to piecing together the Lewinsky afffair.

       Preempting further damage, Mr. Clinton’s handlers immediately sought to mitigate the crisis by placing him on national TV responding to these "tough" questions. It’s no accident that this emergency interview was given by soft-spoken Jim Lehr and not less tactful types like Sam Donaldson, Dan Rather or even the unwavering but consummate diplomat Ted Koppel. No, the White House couldn’t afford another ambush, they needed President Clinton to appear in charge of the interview. Fortunately for Mr. Clinton, the American public is more concerned about the economy, entitlements and foreign affairs, than whether he’s unfaithful to his wife. What makes this controversy so potentially damaging to Clinton’s credibility are the criminal implications, namely, that he or his attorney-friend Vernon Jordan instructed Ms. Lewinsky to lie under oath. Regrettably for White House spin doctors, Mr. Clinton’s sexual escapades are almost as well publicized as "El Nino." Making this otherwise avoidable matter worse, the irrepressible Paula Corbin Jones case, constantly reminds a voracious TV audience that promiscuity isn’t an alien phenomenon to this President.

       As Mr. Clinton’s former spin doctor Dick Morris discovered, plausible deniability is a precious commodity easily vaporized by too many contradictory sources of information. Attributing Mr. Morris’ problems to "yellow journalism" lacked this essential requirement. There may come a point at which waiving the finger toward the extreme political right also doesn’t cut it — but we’re not at that point yet. "It’s way too premature to talk about ‘high crimes and misdemeanors’ and impeachment," says USC constitutional law professor Irwin Chemerinsky, especially on the basis of unverified circumstantial evidence. Although Linda Tripp’s tapes of conversations with Monica Lewinsky — made with the help of the FBI — certainly don’t help President Clinton’s credibility, they’re not a smoking gun like the Furhman tapes. White House records might be another matter. No, President Clinton’s voice isn’t heard on the tapes: it’s the voices of Linda Tripp and Monica Lewinsky, whose own credibility is also at stake. Dredging up past conjecture about Gennifer Flowers and speculating about whether Ms. Lewinsky takes the fifth — for whatever reason — doesn’t point toward perjury or any other possible repercussions.

       Without jumping overboard, it’s clear that the Monica Lewinsky affair hasn’t helped President Clinton’s already troubled credibility. Why stretch this fragile commodity to the breaking point? Proving the veracity of her statements may not be ultimately possible since the President’s voice doesn’t appear on Linda Tripp’s tapes. But like the O.J. trial, the American public is seeing too much incriminating circumstantial evidence on the nightly news. No matter how much they choose to ignore, it’s in their face. While time is running out on President’s Clinton’s credibility, it’s not too late. As he contemplates the State of the Union, the White House might be well to consider taking its own inventory. Dodging the bullet can’t last forever.

About the Author

John M. Curtis is director of a West Los Angles think tank specializing in human behavior, health care and political research and media consultation. He’s a seminar trainer, columnist and author of Dodging The Bullet and Operation Charisma.