As Capitol Hill rushes to the front lines of another corruption-inspired reform binge, the White House lurks in the shadows, saying as little as possible and hoping against hope that disgraced lobbyist Jack Abramoff keeps prosecutors focused exclusively on Congress in his plea deal for testimony against those he once influenced.

But George W. Bush himself could soon be forced into the open, thanks to White House press secretary Scott McClellan’s stonewalling on the subject of Abramoff’s dealings with the president’s team. Imaginations are running so wild about the lobbyist’s past ties to the president that you have to wonder if Bush will soon have to utter a platonic version of Bill Clinton’s most famous denial: I did not have relations with that man.

Not a good idea, Mr. President, if such a denial would be as much of a lie as Clinton’s was. He too tried to let underlings, even some of his Cabinet members, do his bidding for a while, but ultimately Clinton had to say something definitive about his relationship with the former intern Monica Lewinsky. And he chose to lie.

It would be nice in this scandal if the White House offered both a full accounting of the lobbyist’s meetings with staff as well as any personal contact he had with the president. Unless they have as much to hide as Clinton did. And returning only Abramoff’s individual contributions to Bush campaigns has done nothing so much as concentrate attention on the thousands more that he raised from others.

Indeed, McClellan’s handling of this matter only raises suspicion. Consider this Jan. 17 exchange with reporters who were asking a simple question: Who in the White House met with Abramoff during his lobbying days? “I don’t get into discussing staff-level meetings,” McClellan said. Then, in a lame effort to turn the tables, he suggested that if the press corps had something “specific” to ask about the Abramoff meetings “I’ll be glad to look into it.”

Calling McClellan’s bluff, a reporter then asked something quite specific: Did political adviser and deputy chief of staff Karl Rove ever meet with the lobbyist? “We don’t — we don’t ever tend to get into those staff-level meetings,” was the reply.

Now let’s get McClellan’s position straight: The White House will not release any details about Abramoff’s White House meetings. But if we know any details to ask about, he might look into them. However, asking whether a specific person ever met with Abramoff is outside the boundaries.

Remember the child’s game Twenty Questions? What are you thinking of: animal, vegetable or mineral? This is what the White House spokesman is playing. He might as well quote Darth Vader, who plays the game in an online promotion of “Star Wars.” Vader offers to read your mind in 20 questions, with a caveat: “Do not pick a specific object. Specific objects do not concern me.”

The specifics of Abramoff’s White House relations might be worthy of concern before all is said and done. His own lobbying records show numerous contacts, especially when he was working for manufacturing interests seeking exemption from the federal minimum wage. Some on his lobbying team ended up with jobs in the administration. He and Rove have a long history of political work together. And his ties to the president go back to Bush’s days as Texas governor, when Abramoff lobbied for a client’s school choice plan.

No matter how deftly McClellan distances the White House from Abramoff, it seems likely that more connections will be revealed, given the lethal combination of an energized news media, eager to pierce the veil, and ambitious prosecutors, posed to exploit the lobbyist’s plea-for-testimony deal for every sensational detail they can badger out of him. While the official records on Abramoff’s arrangement with prosecutors show Congress to be front and center in the probe, there’s nothing to stop it from spreading to the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue.

If that happens, the public would look back at the weeks of White House stonewalling and conclude that the administration was hiding something. This is the last thing Bush needs. When Americans were more focused on the CIA leak investigation, which is likely to resurface this year, the White House prevarications about staff involvement, another McClellan production, led many to conclude that their president was not trustworthy.

Joining the Republican Party’s last-minute drive for lobbying reform on Capitol Hill will not stem the tide if the White House stays so mum about its Abramoff past. Continuing to play hide and seek about Abramoff’s White House relations makes sense only if there is something to hide. If his ties were as minimal as McClellan says, why not at least say whom he met with? Otherwise, the media frenzy likely to follow this story could back the president into a corner.

Bush might even have to do what Clinton did — lie about it. After all, Clinton got away with it.

Contributing Editor Craig Crawford is a news analyst for MSNBC, CNBC and “The Early Show” on CBS. He can be reached at ccrawford@cq.com..