Timehost: Another big day in Washington. Monica Lewinsky and Kenneth Starr have come to an agreement
about her testimony. They've made a deal -- she's getting not just limited, or
use, immunity, but transactional, or full immunity. We're going to be
talking about what that means for her -- and for the President. And of
course, all this comes at a time when Kenneth Starr has subpoenaed the
President. To sort all this out for us, we're joined now by TIME
Washington correspondent Jay Branegan. Welcome, Jay.
Jay Branegan: Welcome. Glad to be here.
Timehost: Let's take our first question from the audience.
Amf57 asks: Will Lewinsky's full immunity impact any subpoena of the
President? Is that still going to happen?
Jay Branegan: The Lewinsky immunity has no legal impact on the
president's subpoena. But it will, no doubt, change the political and legal
calculation as to how and when he should respond to it. More than ever, with
this broad grant of immunity, it is necessary for the president to delay his
testimony, if possible, until after he hears , or learns, what Monica has to
say. That's because the broad immunity means that it is likely that Monica
has told a very broad tale to Ken Starr. And the president really should
wait to see what the details of it are.
Ervs asks: Is Starr that desperate that he has offered full immunity
to Lewinsky?
Jay Branegan: One could say that Starr has caved on this matter since
the late lamented attorney for Miss Lewinsky, Bill Ginsberg, had been
holding out for just such a blanket deal. However, one suspects that Starr
didn't get just a small offer of goods in return for his generous immunity
deal. Obviously, we'll have to wait and see, but considering all the other
evidence that Starr has been gathering, it appears likely that Starr has
come out ahead.
Marty2634 asks: Will Monica Lewinsky's testimony corroborate all the
evidence Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr has come up that she had an
affair with the President and was told to cover it up?
Jay Branegan: I think what Monica Lewinsky's testimony will corroborate
is nearly all of the evidence that Starr has developed independently. But
it's not clear that Starr has, without Monica, any kind of a case for
either perjury about a sexual relationship or obstruction of justice. What
Starr has done has been to lock in Monica's testimony on all the peripheral
details that will back up the main contention for which Monica herself
remains the chief witness.
Somelady_98 asks: Can Monica deny the affair now since "the
deal"?
Jay Branegan: Almost surely not. After all, the deal is premised on her
telling the truth before the grand jury. And if the truth were what she
stated in the affidavit to Paula Jones's attorneys, namely, that there was no
affair, then she would not need immunity to testify to that for the grand
jury.
Toddhcol asks: If Lewinsky's testimony points toward obstruction of
justice and or perjury by the President, what is the chance of prosecution
leading up to impeachment?
Jay Branegan: That's really two separate questions. If the evidence
points only to perjury about a sexual affair, then the odds of impeachment
appear to be low. Although all that could change in the political dynamic of
the House of Representatives. It's important to note that Clinton cannot be
"prosecuted" for any of this until he has been impeached and stripped of his
office. That is why all of this really comes down to a political question.
Legally, he could be held strictly liable for prosecution even for a perjury
offense in a civil case. Practically, that would not happen in most cases.
Politically, it wouldn't be particularly good to be found guilty of perjury
or rather, perhaps, to be guilty of perjury, but it is questionable whether
the House would , given Clinton's popularity, move to impeach him for that
alone. But if you add in obstruction of justice -- tampering of witnesses,
offering inducements to give false testimony, encouraging other people to
participate in an obstruction of justice, and so on -- then that becomes a
rather more serious event, both legally, should it come to that, and
politically before the House, which is where Clinton's fate will be
decided.
Marty2634 asks: What's the general consensus view by political
writers concerning the "credibility" of Monica Lewinsky, and will her
testimony strengthen Kenneth Starr's case against President Clinton?
Jay Branegan: To take the second part first, of course her testimony
will strengthen his case. The question is how much. One has to ask why would
Monica Lewinsky tell a terrible story that would implicate herself and the
president in both immoral and perhaps illegal behavior, if it weren't true?
Her credibility will have to be judged on a variety of factors, but if what
she tells the grand jury is broadly consistent with what she told Linda
Tripp in 40 hours of tapes and in the specially recorded FBI taped
conversation with Tripp, then her credibility goes up a lot. However, the
downside would be, of course, that the Clinton side would portray her as
given to flights of fancy and delusion, guilty of inconsistent statements,
and basically, having been pressured by Starr under threat of indictment --
of herself and perhaps of her mother -- into making up this salacious story
to appease Ken Starr's worst opinions. One can see a lot worse people than
Monica Lewinsky, killers, armed robbers and all other types of criminals,
who are given immunity in court and whose testimony is sufficiently credible
to convict their accomplices in the murders, robberies, etc.
Kawick64 asks: Because Monica was granted full immunity do you think
that she will provide information that will at least indicate subornation of
perjury and obstruction of justice?
Jay Branegan: I don't know, but my guess is yes. Without really any
knowledge of what went on, I suspect that Monica got the big prize because
she gave up some really good information.
Timehost: We've been talking a lot about immunity...here's a question
about what it means...
Esquire237 asks: What exactly does she have immunity from?
Jay Branegan: Under transactional immunity, she has immunity from
prosecution for any acts or statements that she committed in the course of
her activities surrounding this matter, both concerning her alleged
dalliance with Clinton and her dealings with the Jones attorneys and with
Starr's attorneys in recent months. The joke in the criminal profession is
that when you have this broad type of immunity, it's the time to confess all
your traffic tickets. The narrower immunity is called "use immunity." Both
types are basically a way to get around the 5th amendment protection
against self-incrimination. That is, you can be forced to testify because
your testimony cannot be used against you. However, under the second type,
use immunity, even though your words could not be used against you,
prosecutors would be free to try to prosecute you completely independently
of what you testified to. You may recall, this is what happened with Ollie
North, who testified under immunity from Congress and was later prosecuted.
The prosecutors in that case claimed that they had developed all their
evidence against Ollie without using any of his testimony against him. But
the court rejected that argument and voided the prosecution. As a practical
matter, many people will tell you, that even though transactional immunity
in principle is much better for the accused than use immunity, in practice,
the difficulty in making an appeals court believe that your testimony was of
no help to the prosecution means that use immunity is nearly as good. Second
point, of course, is once someone has cooperated with you under a grant of
immunity, it's not really considered cricket to go after them anyway. Of
course, in all these cases, the immunity does not hold in one key aspect.
You must tell the truth before the grand jury once you are immunized.
Timehost: Why not just grant the more limited, use immunity in this
case?
Jay Branegan: Good question. No good answer.
Alex_972 asks: Do you think the photo spread in Vanity Fair will hurt
or help Monica?
Jay Branegan: I think at the end of the day it will be largely
irrelevant to anything in the case. It is hard to imagine how a defense
attorney could make any significant use of that to impeach her credibility
or to somehow prove that she did not have an affair with Clinton.
Ivydog97 asks: What are the chances that Clinton will have to testify?
Jay Branegan: Very high. It is politically inconceivable that Clinton,
an officer of the courts, so to speak, in that he is sworn to uphold the
laws of the U.S., could refuse to comply in some fashion with the subpoena.
Legally, he, of course, he could take the 5th amendment, like any other
citizen, but that would be political suicide.
Zappaza asks: I am a 14 year old in Canada taking a summer course
about Political Sciences. Here in Canada we wonder why the Lewinsky/Clinton
case is such a big deal?
Jay Branegan: Well, at the risk of offending the sensibilities of a 14
year old, I think the main answer is "sex." We Americans are traditionally
very puritanical about such matters, although the public reaction in the
polls should make us reconsider this conventional wisdom. And there seems to
be an open season in the press on sexual transgressions by President
Clinton. Polls would show that 85% of the American people don't want to hear
anything more about this mess, and Clinton's popularity remains high at 60%
or so, yet viewership and readership surveys, as well as the often mistaken
gut feeling of editors on both TV and print, suggest that even though people
don't want to know, they do want to know. And this question of obstruction
of justice regarding Monica does raise serious questions about possible
impeachment that were never present in the Paula Jones case where the
president was merely accused of making a crude advance many years ago when
he was Governor of Arkansas.
Robertrac asks: Do you think Clinton's approval rating will descend?
Jay Branegan: Since neither I nor any of my colleagues predicted it
would ascend at the beginning , I am reluctant to make any forecasts.
However, if we finally get on the record a credible story from Monica that
sharply contradicts the president's two key statements to the public,
namely, "I never had sexual relations with that woman." and "I never told
anyone to lie," then I have to assume that he would be in a downward mode,
popularity-wise.
KStky asks: Jay, CBS reports that Starr is no longer interested in
the "talking points" question. Why Not? Were they a forgery to begin with?
Do you care?
Jay Branegan: I think that the reason he's not interested, and this is
only a guess, is that they came from Mrs. Lewis, Monica's mother. This , I
suspect, is why Monica's mom got the full transactional immunity well after
she had testified before the grand jury and I suspect that this was one of
the major hang-ups in the negotiations. This could all be terribly wrong, but
it looks plausible to me that basically Mrs. Lewis wrote the talking points,
and Monica wanted to protect her. Mrs. Lewis didn't tell the truth, and when
Starr realized that the talking points would not lead to Vernon Jordan or
Bruce Lindsey, or Bill Clinton, he figured it was worth giving up on them in
return for Monica's full and complete cooperation on everything else. But, I
repeat, that could be colossally off base.
Wiede4 asks: If Monica is believed to be truthful, as to a sex act,
is it enough to impeach the president?
Jay Branegan: That is the question of the year! Everyone sort of hopes
not, but no one is really sure. Republicans on the Hill are making brave
noises like "If he lied about sex, that's still perjury." But it's not
really clear whether they'll have the courage of their convictions to vote
that way. What could muddy the waters on this is precisely what happened and
whether by some stretch of the imagination, and some very legalistic reading
of definitions, different people could come to different conclusions as to
whether what happened was really sex. Recall that in Clinton's deposition in
the Paula Jones case, he was asked if he had an extramarital sexual affair
with Monica. He said no. But similarly, in 1992, he was asked if he had had
a 12-year affair with Gennifer Flowers. And he said no, but later said in a
statement he viewed as consistent, that he had had a sexual encounter with
her. There's also the matter of whether the Paula Jones lawyers in their
deposition of Clinton painted such a broad definition of sex that even
somewhat mild groping or other borderline activity would be counted by them, but not, perhaps, by other legal readings. This will be one of the more
fascinating questions to play out in the coming weeks.
Timehost: Speaking of Paula Jones...
Messymarvin_18 asks: What does this now do to the Paula Jones
appeal??
Jay Branegan: Probably not too much. The Paula Jones attorneys will file
their motion in the appeal court on Friday. They are expected to dump
several thousand pages of material. If their only concern immediately with
Monica is to get her back in the case, don't forget that because Monica was
embroiled with Kenneth Starr, the judge pulled Monica from Paula's case. At
this point, Paula doesn't have a case, and her first job will be to get that
reinstated, which is really independent of anything Starr does with Monica
at this point.
Somelady_98 asks: Can we expect more info about Starr's case
tomorrow
Jay Branegan: If not tomorrow, certainly in the next few days. There is
a tendency in this case for information not to stay too secret for too long.
So stay tuned to TIME Online. For all the latest!
Timehost: Thanks! Thanks for joining us!
Jay Branegan: Thanks for having me! I enjoyed it -- as always.
