High Crimes and Misdemeanors: The Case Against Bill Clinton (14 page)

BOOK: High Crimes and Misdemeanors: The Case Against Bill Clinton
12.24Mb size Format: txt, pdf, ePub
ads
How had such outlandish charges been unleashed? There were a number of suspicious details.
Linda Tripp was not just any government employee. She was the woman who had revealed the biggest political scandal at least since Watergate and perhaps—for people who know what “Watergate” actually was—in the history of the Republic. The tapes she kept demonstrated not only that the president had lied to the public, but also that he had lied under oath in a lawsuit accusing him of violating a citizen’s constitutional rights. Billy Dale may have been inconvenient, but Tripp was radioactive. It was hard to explain this as anything but a targeted political hit.
Moreover, the trumped-up larceny story came out at a propitious moment for President Clinton, coinciding with two severe PR setbacks for the defendant in
Jones
v.
Clinton
. As luck would have it, the Tripp smear broke the same weekend Kathleen Willey told her story of her encounter with the president on
60 Minutes
. Two days earlier, on Friday, Paula Jones’s lawyers had released the depositions of Clinton’s various distaff accusers, including Willey, Dolly Kyle Browning, and other “Jane Does,” as they were called in their depositions. (Further confusing the Clintonian code of ethics, Clinton lawyer Bennett denounced the “Jane Doe” depositions as “a pack of lies”
28
—even though the sworn statements to which he referred were
only about sex
.)
More insidious, though, discovering who in the Clinton administration had broken the law by releasing information from Tripp’s file soon became a shell game. No one has been fired. No one has been held accountable.
Initially, Clifford Bernath, the Pentagon flunky who had released the information to Mayer, insisted to the press that he alone was responsible for the leak. But, in a deposition on April 30, 1998, he admitted under oath, “I didn’t do it on my own.” Rather, he said his boss, Ken Bacon, had specifically directed him to release the information from Tripp’s 1987 security clearance form. In his contemporaneous notes, Bernath wrote that Bacon had “made clear it’s priority.”
29
Bacon, too, at first told the press that Bernath’s testimony was “not accurate.” But then, when called upon to give statements under oath, he recanted the “not accurate” part. In his own deposition on May 15, Bacon admitted that he had directed Bernath to provide the sensitive information to
The New Yorker
’s Mayer.
Bacon had been called upon by the Clinton administration to help out with nettlesome Clinton women before. He was the Clinton appointee who allowed for the Pentagon press office to be used as a dumping ground for women in the White House—which had brought Tripp and Lewinsky together.
EARNING HER PRESIDENTIAL KNEEPADS
 
As a matter of course,
when the Lewinsky story broke, it was quickly made known that she used to wear low-cut blouses. The day after his deposition, Clinton was in the White House coaching his personal secretary, Betty Currie, to recall that he had resisted Lewinsky’s sexual advances toward him.
30
Man of God Billy Graham quickly excused the lovable rogue: “The ladies just go wild over him.” Graham and Elizabeth Ward Gracen could form a tag-team defending the president’s promiscuity.
If Lewinsky hates Linda Tripp for allegedly betraying her, wait until she sees what “the Big He” has in store for her if she ever starts talking. Then she will really start earning her presidential kneepads.
Chapter Eight
 
Persecuting the Prosecutor
 
Denouncing Clinton’s women
as gold-digging whores—one once convicted of “loitering”—was not the only renewed attack. On the Flowers tapes Clinton says, “It would be extremely valuable, just to have, like I told you before… an on-file affidavit explaining, you know, you were approached by a Republican and asked to do that [allege a sexual relationship].”
The Republican attack machine excuse was reinvigorated to the point of comedy on NBC’s
Today
show when the first lady spoke of the “vast right-wing conspiracy that has been conspiring against my husband.”
1
STARR’S REINCARNATION AS A HARDLINER
 
Descriptions of Starr—by those
who know him, not those who fear him—invariably make him sound like Jimmy Stewart in
It’s a Wonderful Life
. Until he was secretly inducted into the vast right-wing conspiracy (presumably the same day as Monica Lewinsky, the
Washington Post
, and the
New York Times
), conservatives never fully trusted him. He had that Supreme Court aspirant’s gleam in his eye. He tried to walk away from this investigation in 1997, it was assumed, to preserve his viability as a High Court nominee. One of Starr’s prosecutors resigned in disgust when Starr issued a report—unsigned—concluding that Vince Foster’s death was a suicide, with very little new investigation.
Lawyers from the Bush Justice Department laugh at Starr’s media reincarnation as a hard-liner. “His brief in
Cruzan
, for example,” one lawyer remarked, speaking of the Supreme Court’s right-to die case, “refused to denounce substantive due process root and branch. It was the work of a Powell-ite, or of someone who had seen what happened to the great man [Robert Bork].” As a federal judge, he once wrote an opinion in favor of the
Washington Post
in a libel action (
Tavoulareas
v.
Piro
) that some lawyers viewed as an Establishment suck-up. So much for the vast right-wing conspiracy’s small tent.
Even his conservative critics, though, say his ethics are unimpeachable. Many of Starr’s colleagues have remarked upon what a shock it must have been for him to descend into Clinton’s Potterville and discover that not every man’s word is his bond.
Clinton flacks Paul Begala and James Carville’s efforts notwithstanding, the legal community seemed not to have even noticed that the Clinton attack squad had trained its sights on poor honest Ken. The president could have resigned, and federal prosecutors would still have been too busy talking about William Ginsburg’s aberrant behavior to notice. “Starr has got to be going nuts, dealing with such an idiot. He’s never dealt with someone like this.” The reason for lawyers’ obsession with Ginsburg was this: Starr didn’t need Monica any more; about twenty-four hours into the investigation, Monica needed Starr. A credible threat of prison awaited Lewinsky whether she chose Door #1, Door #2, or Door #3.
It is a mark of Starr’s old-school rectitude that his reaction to Ginsburg’s bizarre tactics was austerely described in the
Washington Post
simply as “los[ing] patience with the young woman and her lawyers.”
2
It is a mark of Starr’s dangerousness to the administration that the White House started screaming about leaks from Starr’s office. (If the “leaks” distraction ever fades, perhaps James Carville will reinstitute his December 1996 threat that Starr was “one more mistake away from not having any kneecaps.”)
CLAIMS OF “LEAKS”
 
The “leaks” story, like the
vast right-wing conspiracy story before it, was complete lunacy. For openers, the leaks kept throwing a monkey wrench into Starr’s investigation. Just as Starr was trying to wire Monica, presumably to send her on another limo ride with “the other one,” as she refers to Vernon Jordan on the tapes, the story broke. At that point, Starr’s prosecutors walked away from Lewinsky, saying, “We’ve blown the opportunity to wire her. She’s radioactive because of the Drudge Report.” (This is according to Ginsburg’s self-leaked information in
Time
magazine.
3
)
The nuclear bomb in terms of leaks was the one about Betty Currie, loyal Democrat and personal secretary to President Clinton. According to the
New York Times
, Currie told Starr she was called into the office by Clinton the day after his deposition in the
Jones
case, whereupon Clinton coached her to say she had never seen him alone with Lewinsky. Worse, Clinton instructed Currie to retrieve the gifts he had given Lewinsky—consistent with Lewinsky’s taped remarks that Clinton had told her if she didn’t have the gifts, she wouldn’t have to turn them over to Jones’s lawyers. Currie retrieved the gifts all right. Then she apparently took them straight to Starr.
The moment the
New York Times
(newly inducted vast right-wing conspirator) printed this front-page story on Currie’s testimony, she lost all her value to Starr as a source. (She must have also lost the warm sense of camaraderie around the office. Currie still sits outside the president’s office.) Perhaps most devastating, Starr lost the invaluable element of surprise in producing the gifts during Lewinsky’s, and perhaps Clinton’s, grand jury testimony.
Despite claims in the media that Starr’s office was leaking this information, there was precisely zero evidence to support the allegations. Stuart Taylor of the
National Journal
(formerly a legal reporter for that right-wing conspirator, the
New York Times
) stated on national television that “any number of [the leaks], I’ve heard from the lips of witnesses and lawyers who aren’t connected to Judge Starr’s office, more or less verbatim, the way they were published in other publications.”
Michael Isikoff of
Newsweek
(formerly of that right-wing conspirator, the
Washington Post
) is probably responsible for reporting more of the Lewinsky story than any other single reporter. Isikoff said of the leaks issue on NBC, “We don’t discuss where [leaks] come from. I will say in this particular case of the—of the new White House aide, we do source it to sources close to the president’s defense. So that may help you on that one small matter.”
When Clinton personal attorney David Kendall filed a court motion under seal to protest the alleged “leaks,” his court papers were immediately leaked to the press. As a consequence, the Currie bombshell took second place to Kendall’s allegations of Starr’s leaks on the evening news. Clinton administration officials have admitted that they routinely contact lawyers for witnesses before the grand jury (who, like Clinton, are not subject to any grand jury secrecy rules) to ask about their testimony. Clinton’s lawyers, not Starr’s, have both motive and opportunity to leak.
There is simply no conceptual framework under which leaking important information like this would constitute good legal strategy for Starr. And Ken Starr was no William Ginsburg.
OUTING STARR’S DEPUTIES
 
As with the smeared Jane Does,
the White House did not limit its attacks on Starr’s office to legitimate, if groundless, criticism. Soon Starr’s deputies would find their sex lives under attack. The White House was trying to smear members of Starr’s staff with embarrassing personal stories—including trying to out a closeted homosexual. This wasn’t a matter of a “two-way street,” as Bennett had said when he threatened to go after Paula Jones’s sexual history. Neither Jones nor any members of the independent counsel’s office were being sued for sexually assaulting a subordinate on the job, nor were they being investigated for perjuring themselves about their personal sex lives in order to obstruct justice. This was pure political blood sport.
According to Doug Ireland, reporting in
The Nation
, “Three members of the media confirmed to me that [White House media counsel] Sidney Blumenthal… had indeed been spreading” rumors about the homosexuality of a Starr staffer. Reporters refusing to out the independent counsel staffer were threatened with their own outings.
4
Michael Kelly wrote in early March that in “the past month, Starr’s Washington office has logged what Starr’s chief deputy, Jackie M. Bennett, Jr., says are close to a hundred calls from reporters inquiring about false and damaging accusations against the independent counsel’s prosecutors…. Other recent calls to Starr’s office from journalists reportedly have concerned such pertinent matters as whether a member of the investigation was a closeted homosexual and whether another person was involved in a sexual relationship with a reporter.”
5
The White House first denied and then admitted that the president’s personal lawyers had retained Washington private investigator Terry Lenzner to dig up dirt on Starr and his staff. Bennett claimed this did not constitute investigating “personal lives” on the preposterous grounds that the investigator would not be using any illegal methods of gathering evidence: “There is public information available,” Bennett said, “which, of course, it is our duty as counsel to research and gather.” Divorce records, police reports, and statements from disgruntled acquaintances are “public,” but why is it Bennett’s “duty… to research and gather”? Suppose Starr and his deputies
were
drug-addicted sexual perverts. What does that have to do with whether Clinton committed perjury, suborned perjury, or obstructed justice?
Blumenthal said the allegation that he was trying to out members of Starr’s staff and reporters was “totally false.”
6
He attributed the story to a “smear” campaign, according to the gay and lesbian weekly the
Washington Blade
, “though he was not willing to speculate who might be waging such a campaign.” So now,
The Nation
and the
Washington Blade
have been inducted into the vast right-wing conspiracy, too.
BOOK: High Crimes and Misdemeanors: The Case Against Bill Clinton
12.24Mb size Format: txt, pdf, ePub
ads

Other books

Not Without Hope by Nick Schuyler and Jeré Longman
Isabel's Run by M. D. Grayson
Demon Driven by John Conroe
Havenstar by Glenda Larke
Compliance by Maureen McGowan
Cherry Bomb: A Siobhan Quinn Novel by Caitlin R. Kiernan, Kathleen Tierney
Secret sea; by White, Robb, 1909-1990
Marchington Scandal by Jane Ashford