back to parent page

back to this chapter's TOC

"Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, Religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of Patriotism, who should labour to subvert these great Pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of Men and citizens. The mere Politician, equally with the pious man ought to respect and to cherish them. A volume could not trace all their connections with private and public felicity. Let it simply be asked where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths, which are the instruments of investigation in courts of justice?"
-From Washington's Farewell Address, September 19, 1796

George Washington was a deist, consistent with his Masonic indoctrination, According to Ian Robertson (Sociology, 1987), only 5% of the American population was churchgoing in 1776, and George Washington - among others, such as well-known deists Jefferson and Franklin - rejected the authority of the Bible and were hostile to organized religion. When Washington uses the term "religious" in the above excerpt of his Farewall Address, he means "scrupulously and conscientiously faithful" (from Webster). What Washington then is saying, is that he considers perjury to be grave indeed. The excerpt was supplied by National Review, from http://www.nationalreview.com/washington_perjury.html.

Read about the Clinton regime's propaganda blitz.

from TPDL 1999-Feb-12, from the Associated Press:

Schippers Calls Clinton Trial a 'Sham'

Grudgingly resigned to President Clinton's acquittal, the lawyer who directed the House Republicans' impeachment inquiry called the president's trial a "sham" and charged yesterday that House prosecutors "were cut off at the knees" by senators eager to end the crisis.

"I feel there was no fair trial. There was no constitutional trial in the Senate. I think that the constitutional system has been irrevocably harmed," David P. Schippers said in an interview on the eve of a vote that senators in both parties agree will acquit the president of perjury and obstruction of justice.

Schippers, the GOP investigative counsel for the House Judiciary Committee during its impeachment inquiry, said the 13 Republican lawmakers who prosecuted the case "did everything we could with the minimal tools they allowed us to use."

He criticized the senators for settling for videotaped testimony instead of allowing witnesses to testify live. "They refused to let us prove our case," he said.

The former federal prosecutor, a veteran of organized crimes cases, was selected by House Judiciary Committee Chairman Henry J. Hyde (R-Ill.) to investigate whether Clinton's efforts to conceal an extramarital affair violated laws and amounted to impeachable offenses.

Though a Democrat from Chicago, Schippers quickly became a lightning rod for criticism by Democratic defenders of the president. Now that he's leaving town, he is holding back none of his opinions. "I can say things that maybe some of those congressmen won't say because I'm going to be out of here," he said. "But I have to say what I believe."

He criticized the senators who announced they would vote to acquit the president because they didn't believe the House proved its case. "It's a sham. The whole trial was a sham," he said. "I felt that the [House] managers were cut off at the knees."

The Senate never wanted to hold the trial, he said. "From the day they [the managers] presented the impeachment articles to the Senate," Schippers said, "it seemed like the whole attitude of the senators was 'We don't want to be bothered. We don't want to be annoyed.' "

from TPDL 1999-Feb-12, from the New York Post, by Steve Dunleavy:

TAKING REVENGE ON MAN OF HONOR

WASHINGTON. THE words belong on a barroom floor covered with sawdust and blood.

"He is gonna need an oxygen tank to live. He is dead meat. He doesn't need Jack Kevorkian to help him, he's dead."

These words are from Bob Mulholland, the political strategist for Art Toress, the boss man of the Democratic Party of California.

And he was speaking about the Republican congressman from California called Jim Rogan.

Jim Rogan was one of the House managers who knew full well he was risking political suicide by his stand.

Not only was Rogan a former Democrat, a conscientious judge, a decent family man, but he tilted at the windmill of the Hollywood Mafia. You know, Barbra Streisand, who sings less, talks more and writes checks for Bill Clinton.

Rogan, in one of the most eloquent speeches I have heard, said in his closing argument to that pompous body of the Senate, which has become the American equivalent of the House of Lords, the following:

"The pundits keep telling me that my stand on this issue puts my political fortunes in jeopardy ... I know that in life dreams come and dreams go. But conscience is forever.

"I can live with the concept of not serving in Congress, I cannot live with the idea of remaining in Congress at the expense of doing what I believe to be right."

Honor beyond ambition is as scarce as linguine in the South Pole.

Mr. Mulholland, who does not object to being compared with James Carville, the echo chamber where Bill Clinton's guts should be, said:

"We're going to have so much money to bury him. He looks too often in the mirror. Very arrogant. He is our number one target. We're gonna have so much money, we're gonna bury him."

Exactly what we want to hear. Money beats principle every time.

"Do you know how dumb he is?" Mulholland said. "He was doing an interview the other day and in the background there was a poster picture, a big poster picture, of Richard Nixon. Do you know, as someone who has to run a campaign, sometimes you don't have an issue. What an issue we have here between him screwing up and the money we're gonna bury him with. Forget about Rogan, he's gone, gone."

Today, when the vote comes in, Clinton will walk across water yet again.

But I wonder how in one year's time the senators will view their votes. Clinton will screw up yet again - you can bet on it.

And yet Kenneth Starr is under investigation by Janet (Waco) Reno, Rogan is slimed in his own state, and Rep. Henry Hyde is down in the polls back home in Illinois.

All of this because the White House has done a good job making this a Don King production - all hype and no hit - and Bill Clinton, unlike Jim Rogan, would never commit political suicide for the sake of truth.

from TPDL 1999-Feb-12, from the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette, by Susan Roth:

Clinton has it in for Dickey in 2000, NY Times newspaper story claims

WASHINGTON -- Rep. Jay Dickey has been targeted again by President Clinton for defeat in the 2000 elections, along with the 13 House prosecutors, according to a Thursday report.

The New York Times reported that Clinton told House Minority Leader Richard Gephardt, D-Mo., that he has resolved to defeat the four-term Republican, whose southern Arkansas district includes the president's boyhood hometowns of Hope and Hot Springs.

Dickey, who has had a rocky relationship with the White House, voted for two of the four articles of impeachment before the House in December after the White House threatened to defeat him in 2000. Both those articles passed the House and have been under consideration in the Senate since the beginning of January.

Citing only anonymous "advisers" to Clinton and "people familiar with the conversations," the Times story also said Clinton "was particularly angry at the House members managing the prosecution" in his impeachment trial and intended to force them out of office as well.

Those include Arkansas Republican Rep. Asa Hutchinson, who had no Democratic challenger in his re-election effort last fall but defeated Reform Party candidate Ralph Forbes with 81 percent of the vote.

Without mentioning Dickey or any of the House managers by name, the White House quickly denounced the report and called the notion of revenge a "dumb policy" and a "stupid idea."

"People are not happy with this article," said White House spokesman Jim Kennedy. "We can't really know who those unnamed people are, but this president and White House are absolutely not embarked on that kind of effort at all."

Dickey said that in voting for the articles of impeachment, "I did what I thought was right." Responding to the comments attributed to Clinton, he said:

"For him to do this is to disregard the well-being of my constituents. What he's showing is that he's got dominance over them, and they're more independent than that. ... These are Arkansas people, his home-state people, and he is promising to manipulate them if he can."

In December, Dickey vowed to run in 2000 after the White House threatened his political future if he voted for impeachment. On Thursday he said he has "even more resolve now" to seek a fifth term.

"This is a sad thing," Dickey added. "This should be a time to consolidate and coordinate [with the president]. Let's let our differences be our strength. What's happening is we are risking two years of political posturing and Arkansas suffers."

Hutchinson said he will give the president the benefit of the doubt. "I hope these are the comments of an errant aide and not the president,"

Hutchinson said. "As the president has indicated before, the politics of personal destruction are not particularly productive in life. Republicans should not hold a grudge and say we won't work with the president, and the president should not hold a grudge either."

He said he took the threat "as reality, but I don't tremble at reality. There's likely to be some tough politics that will surface in the 2000 election, but there's nothing really new there. The president has campaigned and supported Democrats for years.

"I try to do a good job for the voters and hope that'll all work out," Hutchinson said, adding that he intends to run again in two years. And he said he does not worry about Dickey.

"Jay Dickey has proven himself to be an extraordinarily strong candidate for the 4th District. I reckon he can take care of himself."

Other Republicans jumped all over the White House.

Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott, R-Miss., released a statement that it was "very troubling" that the White House sees the closure of the impeachment effort as an opportunity for revenge.

Republican National Committee Chairman Jim Nicholson attacked Clinton for his "legacy of revenge. He wants to be remembered as a man who beat the odds, who got away with it. But more than that, he wants a legacy of vengeance and revenge against those there to speak the truth."

Nicholson vowed to meet "Clinton's challenge head-on, state by state, district by district, candidate by candidate."

At the White House, Press Secretary Joe Lockhart said, "I can't think of a worse, more dumb policy than going after people," Denying that any such policy exists, he said, "I think we're a little bit smarter than that."

Lockhart acknowledged that most of the House managers come from safe seats. He said the president is looking forward to working with Congress to build up some accomplishments.

Kennedy agreed, saying, "This notion of revenge is really a stupid idea, and I think people generally give the White House more credit than that in the way it conducts its work."

"Anybody who knows the president does not associate that kind of quality with him," Kennedy said. "He is not the kind who seeks retribution. In fact, he's been criticized for turning the other cheek. I know we will both be working across party lines to get the agenda accomplished."

Information for this article was contributed by Andy Sher of the Chattanooga Times/Chattanooga Free Press.

from TPDL 1999-Feb-8, from CNS, by Lawrence Morahan, Staff Writer:

Leaks, Media Coverage Frustrate Judicial System

(CNS) - While many trial analysts are blaming media saturation for the public's fatigue with the impeachment trial of President Clinton, some say the obsessive coverage is itself making justice impossible and may have negative implications for the future of the U.S. criminal justice system.

The White House is by turns generating news and using coverage of the news to thwart the investigation of independent counsel Kenneth Starr, and thus obstruct justice, a leading conservative lawyer contends.

"The White House is availing of legal loopholes that lawyers are generally too decent to use" in defense of the president, said Laurence Elgin, a prominent Washington attorney and president of U.S. Defense - American Victory, in an interview with CNS.

David Kendall, the president's personal attorney, last week accused the Office of the Independent Counsel of "once again" engaging in "illegal and partisan leaking."

Kendall was referring to a report published in The New York Times on Sunday that quoted associates of Starr as saying Starr possessed the constitutional authority to secure an indictment against Clinton while the president was still in office.

Starr said in a statement Monday his office was "deeply troubled" by the NYT report and promised to launch an internal investigation. He added, however, that the internal investigation did not mean he was confirming anything in the NYT article.

This is not the first allegation of leaks by Kendall. Last year, White House lawyers made 37 such allegations, none of which was proved, raising doubts in the minds of commentators about the White House's motives.

Leaking stories is a widely-accepted Washington practice and lends itself as much to abuse as to a healthy exercise of First Amendment rights. A "source" calls a friendly media outlet and gives a credible account of privileged information, choosing from the journalist's well-known almanac of attributes, which includes everything between "an associate" to "a source familiar with the investigation who requested anonymity," to hide their identity.

To the media outlet, which runs virtually no risk of prosecution, the only consideration is credibility. If the information resonates with a segment of the public, it's news.

The chances the leaks were coming from Starr, who Elgin characterized as "enormously learned" in the law, were improbable. Given the media climate culture, however, it is obvious the leaks could just as easily come from the White House or from Clinton sympathizers.

What is never mentioned in media reports is the low standard for triggering a "show cause," said Elgin, who has practiced law in Washington since 1973. To hound Starr, the White House cites Rule 6(e), which says a violation occurs when the media reports on matters before the grand jury and indicates the sources of the information included attorneys and agents of the government.

Once a violation of Rule 6(e) is cited, the district court must conduct a "show cause" hearing to determine whether the government was responsible for the pre-indictment publicity and whether any information disclosed concerned matters before the grand jury.

According to the law, Kendall's filing puts the burden on Starr to prove his office was not in violation of grand jury rules.

The law says the "determination will typically be based solely on an assessment of news articles submitted by the plaintiff," what Elgin called "a ridiculously low standard" considering the implications of the impeachment trial and the volume of news reports it generates.

"It has gone so far as to have tainted the entire process," Elgin said. The implications have far reaching consequences for the criminal justice system in the future, Elgin said, when criminal defense lawyers can cite the low standard.

from TPDL 1999-Feb-3, from the New York Post, by Vincent Morris and Brian Blomquist:

JORDAN NOW ADMITS PREZ ASKED HIM TO GET MONICA JOB

WASHINGTON - First Pal Vernon Jordan yesterday conceded that he helped Monica Lewinsky get a job because President Clinton asked him to - a switch from his original account, sources said.

Jordan also conceded, the sources said, that he was at a breakfast meeting with Lewinsky where she says he told her to destroy love letters she'd written to Clinton - "go home and make sure they're not there."

Jordan continued to deny telling her to destroy evidence - the letters were under subpoena - but admitted he was at the meeting (which he'd earlier denied) after being confronted with a receipt, the sources added.

The receipt for the Dec. 27, 1997, breakfast at a Washington hotel, obtained by Sexgate prober Kenneth Starr, shows Lewinsky had an egg-white omelet.

Jordan originally had claimed he helped Lewinsky find a job at the request of Clinton secretary Betty Currie rather than the president himself, even though he reported "mission accomplished" to Clinton.

Jordan was the single witness on Day 2 of a three-day set of depositions House prosecutors are using to shore up their impeachment case - the grilling focused on whether he helped Lewinsky to get her to cover up her affair with Clinton.

Ex-journalist Sidney Blumenthal, a Clinton confidante, will be questioned today about his sworn testimony that Clinton told him Lewinsky was called "the stalker" and he'd rebuffed her sexual advances.

This week's depositions are building toward a fight in the Senate over whether to call live witnesses.

"We all want witnesses, but there are strategic questions about what we ought to do next," GOP Rep. Asa Hutchinson (Ark.) told The Post after quizzing Jordan. "We won't know for sure until we hear from Sidney Blumenthal."

Others said the depositions revealed little, making senators even more skeptical of live witnesses.

White House lawyers attended but asked only a handful of simple questions. They posed zero queries to Lewinsky on Monday.

Meanwhile, most senators yawned their way through the Monica movie yesterday - the screening of Lewinsky's G-rated videotaped testimony from Monday.

from TPDL 1999-Feb-7, from the New York Times, by Alison Mitchell:

Journalist Submits Affidavit Naming Aide as a Source

WASHINGTON -- A free-lance journalist who has been critical of President Clinton throughout the Lewinsky scandal has provided an affidavit to House investigators saying that Sidney Blumenthal, a White House aide, provided him with information disparaging Monica S. Lewinsky.

The affidavit by the journalist, Christopher Hitchens, contradicts the sworn testimony of Blumenthal, who has maintained that he was not a source of damaging comments about Ms. Lewinsky, the former White House intern.

During questioning by House prosecutors earlier this week, Blumenthal, a senior White House communications aide, said that Clinton had described Ms. Lewinsky to him as a "stalker." But Blumenthal denied that he had repeated that description of her to reporters. Asked about the source of such characterizations in news reports, he said, "I have no idea how anything came to be attributed to a White House source."

William McDaniel, Blumenthal's lawyer, has also said that his client "didn't peddle it, he didn't urge people to write about it, he didn't tell people about it." McDaniel previously said that if journalists felt bound to protect Blumenthal's identity as a source, "they're released."

An official of the House Judiciary Committee said investigators received a call after Blumenthal's deposition, either late Thursday or early Friday, saying the committee might want to talk to Hitchens, a British journalist working in Washington who writes for Vanity Fair and The Nation magazine.

Hitchens was contacted on Friday by committee investigators who took an affidavit from him. In the affidavit, Hitchens said that during lunch last March at the Occidental Grill, a restaurant near the White House, Blumenthal had said several times that Ms. Lewinsky was a "stalker" and that the President was the "victim" of an unstable young woman.

The affidavit was circulating on Capitol Hill tonight and was made available by a Congressional official sympathetic to the House case against Clinton.

Tonight, Blumenthal said in a statement, "My testimony to the Senate was truthful. If someone is saying it was not they are mistaken." Hitchens could not be reached for comment.

Hitchens also said in the affidavit that Blumenthal had told him that polling showed that Kathleen E. Willey, a White House volunteer who said the President made a sexual advance to her near the Oval Office, had high approval ratings but that those numbers would not look as good in several days.

The affidavit, which was signed by Hitchens and dated Feb. 5, was turned over to Senate leaders today. The Senate would have to hold a vote if it wanted to enter the document in the impeachment record.

The affidavit contradicts Blumenthal's deposition and his testimony before the grand jury. A Republican aide to the House prosecutors, who insisted on anonymity, said the affidavit "raises the specter of perjury by one of the President's chief defenders," and that it added to the House case of obstruction of justice.

Senator Jack Reed, a Rhode Island Democrat, said that the Justice Department could investigate false testimony, but that the statement by Hitchens was "collateral at best" to the case against the President.

from TPDL 1999-Feb-9, from the New York Post, by Deborah Orin:

2 MORE SCRIBES FINGER SIDNEY ON SMEARS

WASHINGTON - Clinton aide Sidney Blumenthal faced a growing storm yesterday as two more journalists signed affidavits suggesting he lied under oath when he denied smearing Monica Lewinsky.

That makes three anti-Blumenthal affidavits in all, and Republicans pressed for a fast probe of whether he lied.

Republicans planned to take up the matter at their caucus today. Some want Blumenthal probed this week, before the end of President Clinton's impeachment trial, because he was one of only three witnesses called.

But there seemed little chance it would delay the trial.

All three affidavits suggest Blumenthal repeated a conversation in which Clinton smeared Lewinsky as "a stalker" - a conversation Blumenthal swore just last week that he never repeated.

"I didn't mention it to my friends ... I certainly never mentioned it to any reporter," Blumenthal said in that sworn testimony.

House prosecutors claim Clinton deliberately fed false smears to Blumenthal - whose job included talking to reporters - as part of a plot to obstruct justice by intimidating witnesses like Lewinsky.

British journalist Christopher Hitchens first accused Blumenthal of lying. One new affidavit came from his wife, writer Carol Blue.

"Mr. Blumenthal stated that the president told him that he was the 'victim' of Monica Lewinsky's sexual advances and that she was a 'stalker' and 'was crazy,'" Blue wrote about a March 1998 luncheon.

The third affidavit, from ex-Washington Post reporter Scott Armstrong, says Blue and Hitchens - who makes no secret of his disdain for Clinton as a "corrupt" president - told him of Blumenthal's remarks right afterward.

"They recounted to me a conversation they had had with Sidney Blumenthal in which Mr. Blumenthal had related to them, among other things, that Monica Lewinsky was a stalker," Armstrong wrote.

Hitchens and Blue, in their affidavits, describe Blumenthal as a "social friend."

Blumenthal issued a statement saying that's no longer the case. "My wife and I are saddened that Christopher has chosen to end our friendship in this meaningless way," Blumenthal said,

Senate GOP leader Trent Lott tried to introduce the affidavits into evidence yesterday, but Senate Democrat leader Tom Daschle blocked him.

The White House refused comment yesterday. Clinton swore under oath that he didn't tell any direct falsehoods to aides such as Blumenthal.

Blumenthal, through his lawyer, William McDaniel, has denied any impropriety.

from TPDL 1999-Feb-7, from the New York Post, by Dick Morris:

WHY BILL TRASHED 'THAT WOMAN'

ON Jan. 21, 1998, President Clinton lied to his aide Sidney Blumenthal and denied having an affair with Monica.

But why did he go further and actually make up a tale designed to destroy Lewinsky's reputation?

Was it just the president bolstering his denial - or was it part of a deliberate effort to obstruct justice by besmirching a potentially hostile witness?

My conversation with the president on the next day, Jan. 22, suggests a less-than-benign motivation for the president's comments to Sidney about Monica.

On Jan. 21 and Jan. 22, Bill Clinton believed there was an imminent likelihood that Lewinsky would turn on him and cooperate with Kenneth Starr. If this is true, it would mean that his attack on Monica - delivered to Sidney - was intended to find its way to the grand jury to counter Lewinsky's expected testimony.

On Jan. 22, I told the president that a reporter for USA Today told me that the tapes indicated that Lewinsky had told Linda Tripp of an incident involving herself, the president and me that never took place.

I told the President that I wanted to have a press conference blasting Lewinsky and attacking her credibility. "I was ecstatic when I heard she said that," he replied, obviously suggesting that he had anticipated an adversarial relationship with Lewinsky.

An hour later, we spoke again and he revealed the full extent of his pessimism about Lewinsky by telling me that I should not attack her because "there still may be a slight chance that she will not cooperate with Starr and we don't want to alienate her."

Clearly, the president believed the likelihood was that Monica would turn on him.

If Monica turned on Clinton, she would have only done so under a plea bargain with Starr. The president realized that it was only under an immunity agreement that Lewinsky could afford to refute her affidavit and admit her sexual relationship with Clinton.

So Clinton was not attacking Monica the person, he was blasting Monica the witness. By attacking Lewinsky to Blumenthal, Clinton was obviously trying to blunt her testimony, should she turn on him. That sounds a lot like obstruction of justice to me.

Neither the House managers nor Kenneth Starr asked me about the president's state of mind regarding Monica in our late January conversations. As I watched Blumenthal's testimony it struck me that we had all overlooked this obvious point.

When Clinton began his conversation with Blumenthal on Jan. 21, he alluded to the conversation I had just finished with the president in which I warned him against a strategy of denial that would land him in a Nixon-like situation.

Probably the president was seeking Sidney's advice. But Blumenthal didn't take the hint and asked, instead, what the facts were. His obtuseness led the president to drop his request for advice and use the chat to peddle his phony story.

The president's lawyers take the position that there was nothing about his talk with Sidney that was aimed at the grand jury. They say, in effect, that Clinton wasn't lying to the grand jury through Sidney, but rather that he was using Sidney to lie to the press and the world at large. That makes sense insofar as his denial of a relationship with Monica is concerned. But the defamation of Monica could only be designed to influence the grand jury.

In general, the president was deeply focused on the legal, not the political, situation he faced on Jan. 21-22, 1998. In our conversation at noon on Jan. 21, the president asked, worriedly, "What about the legal situation, you know, with Starr?"

Even though I was his former pollster, he did not ask about the public reaction to his affair but only about the legal predicament he had put himself in by his previous false testimony at the Jones deposition.

I worked hard in that call to help him to see that if he solved the political problem and won the public to his side that his legal jeopardy was more theoretical than real (as it has turned out to be).

This indication of the president's likely state of mind in coaching Blumenthal further reinforces the contention of the house managers that the talk with the president was aimed more at the legal process, where coverup was illegal, than at the political process, where it was not.

from TPDL 1999-Feb-8, from the Associated Press:

Senators seek inquiry of perjury allegation against Blumenthal

WASHINGTON -- Several Democratic and Republican senators demanded Sunday that the Justice Department investigate whether an aide to President Clinton committed perjury by denying he spread a story that Monica Lewinsky was a stalker.

The allegation against Sidney Blumenthal came Saturday in an affidavit by British journalist Christopher Hitchens, released by House impeachment managers. He repeated the charge on television Sunday, saying Blumenthal told Hitchens and other reporters: "Monica Lewinsky was a stalker."

"We will insist that we have an expedited consideration by the Justice Department," Republican Sen. Phil Gramm of Texas said.

Sen. Olympia Snowe, R-Maine, said, "Certainly the truth should be uncovered with respect to whether or not Sidney Blumenthal told the truth under oath."

In testimony at the Senate impeachment trial and to prosecutor Kenneth Starr's grand jury, Blumenthal denied passing to the news media President Clinton's assertion that Lewinsky made sexual demands.

Responding to Hitchens, Blumenthal issued a statement Sunday that focused on a part of his testimony where he said he spoke of Lewinsky to "friends." That category, the statement said, included Hitchens.

"When I saw [Blumenthal] for the first time since the scandal broke, that's what he said to me and to my wife and has said to many other people, that Monica Lewinsky was a stalker," Hitchens said on NBC's Meet the Press.

Hitchens also said that in the same conversation, Blumenthal said "some ... unpleasant things about poor Kathleen Willey," the former White House volunteer who alleged Clinton made an unwanted sexual advance.

Democratic Sen. Carl Levin of Michigan predicted a Justice Department inquiry into whether Blumenthal lied, and Democrats Joseph Lieberman of Connecticut and Jay Rockefeller of West Virginia said there should be an investigation.

Democratic Sen. Dianne Feinstein of California said, "I would hope that he isn't lying. I think if he is, it's serious.

"I think one of the most difficult parts of this for me has been the concept of Monica Lewinsky" being called "a stalker, because that has a certain diabolical ring to it," Feinstein said. Spreading such derogatory information, she said, "isn't a nice thing to do."

Blumenthal's lawyer, William McDaniel, issued a statement quoting the presidential aide as saying, "I was never a source for any story about Monica Lewinsky's personal life.

"I did not reveal what the president told me to any reporter. As I testified to the Senate, I talked every day about the stories in the news concerning Miss Lewinsky to my friends and family, just as everyone else is doing."

from TPDL 1999-Jan-30, from The American Spectator, by Byron York:

"You can't do that to me"
Bruce Gets Away -- Again

The Senate's decision to allow just three witnesses in the presidential impeachment trial not only means we won't hear from key players like Betty Currie. It also forever seals the lips of the man who probably knows more about the scandal than anyone except the president himself: Bruce Lindsey.

Lindsey, the president's closest confidant, stonewalled Kenneth Starr's grand jury for six months -- and got away with it. He was first summoned to testify on February 18, 1998, less than a month after the Lewinsky scandal broke. Early in the questioning, Lindsey read a prepared statement to the grand jury in which he claimed that executive privilege and attorney-client privilege might prevent him from answering many of the government's inquiries.

"Do you understand that both of these privileges are to be invoked by the client?" prosecutor Tom Bienert asked.

"Yes, sir," Lindsey responded. "I'm not invoking them. I am simply raising the possibility that those privileges come into play."

"And you understand that in this case the client would be the president or the presidency, correct?"

"Correct."

"And you understand that President Clinton is on record as saying that he would fully cooperate with the investigation?"

"Yes, sir. I'm here. I'm fully cooperating."

He wasn't. During two days of questioning, Lindsey, while not formally asserting privilege, still refused to answer dozens of questions about Monica Lewinsky and the Paula Jones case. He was similarly uncooperative during grand jury sessions on February 19 and March 12.

Starr took the White House to court. The independent counsel won the first round on executive privilege and was preparing to take the issue to the Supreme Court when the president abruptly dropped the claim last June. On attorney-client privilege, a federal appeals court ruled in Starr's favor in July -- and Supreme Court chief justice William Rehnquist declined to stop testimony while the White House appealed. The way seemed clear for Lindsey to testify.

Then, in early August, the White House suddenly revived its claim of executive privilege. The dispute was unresolved when Lindsey appeared before the grand jury on August 28.

"Is it your intent today to answer all questions about which you have previously asserted executive privilege?" prosecutor Robert Bittman asked at the beginning of the day.

"No sir," Lindsey said.

"Why not?"

"Well, we have appealed."

What followed was a combative session in which Lindsey not only repeated his earlier assertion of executive privilege but also fell back on the discredited claim of attorney-client privilege. Take, for example, his response to Bittman's attempt to learn more about the Lewinsky job search.

"When was the first time you learned that the President was helping Ms. Lewinsky get a job?" Bittman asked.

"I don't know if I've ever learned that," Lindsey responded.

"You don't know that to be true -- that the President helped Ms. Lewinsky get a job?"

"I did not believe that I do, no."

"When was the first time you learned that anyone else was helping Ms. Lewinsky get a job?"

"The day of the [Paula Jones] deposition."

"And from whom did you learn that?"

"That's attorney-client privilege."

"What did you learn?"

"That also would be attorney-client privilege."

The maneuvering left some grand jurors openly bewildered. After a long back-and-forth, a juror interrupted to ask: "Are you one of the President's private attorneys?"

"No ma'am," Lindsey said.

"How you can say that you can't respond or answer a question because of attorney-client privilege? I can't see -- I'm totally confused."

The juror never got a good answer. And the situation was no clearer when Lindsey flatly refused to answer questions without claiming any privilege at all. For example, prosecutors got nowhere when they asked what Lindsey knew about the president's relationship with Monica Lewinsky.

"On January 17, 1998, was it your understanding that the president had not had a sexual relationship with Monica Lewinsky?" Bittman asked.

"It was my understanding that that was his testimony," Lindsey said.

"Well, was it your understanding before his testimony that that was correct?"

"That that was -- I'm not going to -- no, you can't do that to me," Lindsey answered.

Of course, Lindsey didn't claim privilege all the time. But that didn't mean he answered the prosecutors' questions. Take a close look at his responses to Bittman's queries about preparations for the president's deposition:

"When did you first learn that Ms. Lewinsky was contemplating preparing an affidavit for the Paula Jones case?" Bittman asked.

"I don't know that I ever learned that," Lindsey said.

"Well, you knew that at least during your prep sessions of the president right before his deposition."

"Well, you -- I thought the question was that she was contemplating preparing one," Lindsey answered. "I knew that she had prepared an affidavit. I don't know if I knew until after the affidavit was prepared and filed."

"So the first you heard of anything about an affidavit and Monica Lewinsky was at the prep session a couple of days before the deposition?"

"No, I didn't -- I can't say that. I don' my -- I don't -- my answer is I don't recall when I first learned it."

That was Lindsey's last grand jury appearance; it appears Starr just gave up trying to force him to answer questions. The independent counsel had his reasons: by late August, Lewinsky had become a cooperating witness and Starr's team was hard at work on the impeachment referral to Congress. The privilege issue receded into the background -- and was never settled.

Now Lindsey has escaped questioning in the Senate, too. House managers, under pressure to keep their witness requests to a minimum, left him off the list. No doubt Lindsey enjoyed the outcome, which he was able to watch unfold from his seat at the president's defense table.

Of course, had he been called to the witness chair, Lindsey might have continued his uncooperative ways. He might have renewed his claims of privilege. He might have taken the Fifth. Or he might have given maddeningly incomplete answers. Still, it would have been a good thing for the Senate -- and the nation -- to see him in action.

from Judicial Watch (press release) 1999-Mar-5:

BRUCE LINDSEY EVADES COURT PROCESS
JUDICIAL WATCH REQUESTS COURT APPOINT U.S. MARSHALS TO EFFECT SERVICE

(Washington, March 5) Judicial Watch yesterday asked a federal court to appoint U.S. marshals to serve Clinton aide Bruce Lindsey with a civil complaint filed by Dolly Kyle Browning against him, Bill Clinton and others. The RICO (Racketeering Influenced and Corrupt Organizations) civil suit alleges that Bill Clinton and Bruce Lindsey engaged in a pattern of threatening women in order to obtain and maintain hold on the office of the presidency, among other grounds.

The President and other defendants in the lawsuit, including Bob Bennett, Marsha Scott, and Jane Mayer and The New Yorker magazine, have already accepted service of the lawsuit. Judicial Watch served Lindsey (along with the President) at the White House and attempted unsuccessfully to serve Bruce Lindsey personally at least seven times at his residence. All the while, Mr. Lindsey sent a number of letters to Judicial Watch, threatening it and refusing to acknowledge service. Judicial Watch represents Mrs. Browning and her husband Robert Browning's publishing company in this lawsuit.

"Another court has criticized other high-level Clinton Administration officials for playing similar process games, likening them to `hooligans' and `scofflaws'," noted Larry Klayman, Chairman and General Counsel. "We hope that Mr. Lindsey will cease his gamesmanship and accept service, so that Court process can be respected."

Larry Klayman is a former Justice Department prosecutor and now serves as Chairman and General Counsel of Judicial Watch, a public interest watchdog group.

from TPDL 1999-Feb-10, coverage of KFYI-910 AM Phoenix:

US Intelligence Recordings of Clinton-Lewinsky

KFYI has been reporting this as their top story all morning. Kyl claims he is aware of this since he is on an Intelligence committee in the Senate. Recordings are said to include Clinton-Lewinsky conversations, and Sen Kyl won't say which agency is the source.

from TPDL 1999-Feb-11, from the Arizona Republic:

Clinton calls might have been taped
Kyl hints at intelligence monitoring

A U.S. intelligence agency may have taped telephone conversations between President Clinton and Monica Lewinsky, and information about the tapes has been turned over to independent counsel Kenneth Starr, Sen. Jon Kyl said Tuesday.

The information came to light last week as the Senate considered evidence in the president's impeachment trial.

Kyl, a member of the Select Committee on Intelligence, said key GOP senators were approached by sources who said they knew of the possible existence of the tapes. The names of those sources were then turned over to Starr for investigation, Kyl said.

It was unclear whether the development would affect the impeachment trial, which is scheduled to draw to a close Friday.

"There are different agencies in the government that make it their business to tape certain things for certain reasons, and it was one of those agencies" that did the taping, Kyl said.

"Incidentally, it may have been more than one of those agencies," he added.

Kyl, R-Ariz., refused to identify the agency or agencies involved in the taping.

"That's something I absolutely can't get into in any greater detail," he said.

Kyl said of the sources: "They are people who claim to have information about those tapes, who by virtue of who they are have some credibility with respect to the information they have come forward about."

When asked whether the sources were members of U.S. intelligence, Kyl said, "You can assume that they are people who at some period in time have been in the employ of the federal government."

As for the motive of the sources, Kyl said he believed they were prompted by the testimony of witnesses in the impeachment trial.

"Here you have a case going forward, and at issue are a lot of different interpretations of phone conversations," Kyl said, mentioning in particular diverging memories about details of events in the testimony of Lewinsky and presidential friend Vernon Jordan.

Kyl compared the allegations of the tapes' existence to the "smoking gun" evidence in the Watergate scandal, when congressional witness Alexander Butterfield "just blurted out" a reference to former President Nixon's taping system in the Oval Office.

"Now you have people who have reason to know that the tapes exist and they say, 'Wait a minute, shouldn't someone know about this?' " Kyl said.

News reports Tuesday about the possibility of tapes of presidential conversations focused on the possibility of a taping system in the White House that captured phone calls between Clinton and Lewinsky, but the White House denied the existence of such a system.

Kyl was the first to reveal that the conversations had been recorded by the unidentified intelligence sources.

U.S. intelligence, including the CIA, the National Security Agency and all of the branches of military intelligence, report to the president and work for the executive branch. The legality of employees of these agencies informing members of Congress of the existence of classified material was unclear Tuesday.

Kyl first revealed the role of the unnamed intelligence services in his impeachment diary entry for Tuesday, which is published in today's Republic. Kyl has been writing the diary for his grandchildren, and the newspaper has been printing excerpts of the diary since the impeachment trial of the president began in January.

"Public reports are now surfacing about the possibility that a national security agency may have copies of taped conversations of White House calls made by or to the president during the times relevant to this case," Kyl wrote. "I'll have more to say about this as it is officially dealt with publicly."

The idea of turning over the records involving the tapes to Starr's office apparently originated with a member of the GOP Senate leadership.

"We've been talking about what to do about this, and I suggested why don't we turn it over to Starr," Assistant Majority Leader Don Nickles told the Associated Press. "It's for him to handle; it's not for us to handle."

The AP reported that the Republican senators received information about a week ago, raising the possibility that a White House taping system might exist. Eager to finish the impeachment trial, they sent the information to Starr.

Majority Leader Trent Lott of Mississippi told reporters Tuesday that the GOP senators played no role in the matter other than to receive the information and pass it on to Starr.

"All I've done is make available information sent to me," Lott said.

White House spokesman Barry Toiv denied the existence of a White House recording operation.

"We're not aware of any taping system," he told the AP.

Toiv said there are occasional instances in which Clinton will conduct an interview by phone, and the call is taped to transcribe the conversation. In some other instances when Clinton speaks to groups long distance by phone, those calls are taped and transcribed, he said.

from TPDL 1999-Feb-3, from CNS 1999-Feb-2, by Lawrence Morahan, staff writer:

White House Motion "a Dime a Dozen"

(CNS) - Allegations by the White House that the Office of the Independent Counsel is leaking information to the press in the impeachment trial of President Clinton were described by leading conservative lawyers as an abuse of the judicial system at best and an obstruction of justice at worst.

"It is totally counter-intuitive to assume [Independent Counsel Kenneth] Starr or anyone on his staff would have provided leaks of the kinds alleged by the White House," said Victor Williams, an associate professor of law at the University of Tampa, in an interview with CNS.

"It runs against the interests of the independent counsel. Assuming they did - and that assumption would be quite a stretch - it would clearly be coming from someone who's bent on doing damage to the independent counsel's mission," Williams said.

David Kendall, the president's personal attorney, said Monday that the Office of the Independent Counsel "has once again engaged in illegal and partisan leaking."

Kendall was referring to a report published in The New York Times on Sunday that quoted associates of Starr as saying Starr possessed the constitutional authority to secure an indictment against Clinton while the president was still in office. Starr, who is investigating cover-up allegations stemming from Clinton's sexual affair with Monica Lewinsky, had not decided whether to seek an indictment, the article said.

"We are filing today in the United States District Court of the District of Columbia a motion to show cause why independent counsel Starr and members of his staff should not be held in contempt for improper violations of grand jury secrecy," Kendall told reporters outside the White House Monday.

According to the law, Kendall's filing puts the burden on Starr to prove his office was not in violation of grand jury rules.

"It's a kind of 'justice through the looking glass' where the onus is on a former solicitor general of the United States [Starr] to prove he's not violating rules in prosecuting someone who's an admitted liar," Williams said.

Starr said in a statement Monday that his office was "deeply troubled" by the NYT report and that his office would launch an internal investigation. He added, however, that the internal investigation did not mean he was confirming anything in the NYT article.

This is not the first such allegation of leaks by Kendall. Last year, White House lawyers made 37 allegations of leaks, none of which has been proven, raising serious misgivings in the minds of many conservative commentators about the White House's motives.

"David Kendall's filing for a show cause is a sure tip-off that the White House is desperate to spread a new lie to replace an old one that is fading or about to run out," said Laurence Elgin, a Washington attorney and president of U.S. Defense - American Victory, in an interview with CNS.

Elgin said the allegations of leaks coming out of Starr's office and subsequent motions by White House lawyers to hold Starr in contempt are taken seriously only by a media that is either unfamiliar with the legal process or is eager to portray Starr as a prosecutor out of control.

"Show cause motions are a dime a dozen," said Elgin, who has practiced law in Washington since 1973. "They're particularly favored by litigants who are in great danger of losing on the merits."

"There is no verification that Starr or his staff have ever leaked anything," Elgin said.

Officials at the U.S. District Court in Washington where the allegations reportedly are under investigation by a court commissioner either refused to comment to CNS or said they were unaware of the status of the investigation.

from TPDL 2000-Aug-1, from the New York Times 2000-Jul-31, by William Safire:

Norma the Plumber

WASHINGTON -- Democrat Norma Holloway Johnson, in my view the most partisan and power-abusive judge on the federal bench, is finally being forced to answer questions about her conduct.

To avert favoritism, the chief judge of the D.C. District Court is supposed to assign judges to cases randomly. But when assigning politically sensitive cases involving Webster Hubbell and Charlie Trie, Judge Johnson veered "off the wheel" to direct those cases to Clinton-appointed judges.

When this apparent subversion of the administration of justice drew fire in the press and a formal complaint from Judicial Watch, the Judicial Council of D.C. listened to the chief judge's protestations at any challenge to her integrity and too hastily dismissed the complaint.

Then Representative Howard Coble, chairman of House Judiciary's subcommittee on the courts, sent the Court of Appeals here evidence of four more cases in which Chief Judge Johnson bypassed the system to steer cases embarrassing to Democrats (including that of Clinton-Gore fund-raiser Maria Hsia) to judges notoriously soft on Clintonites. The implicit message: if the Judicial Branch didn't clean up its act internally, the Legislative Branch would step up to its constitutional responsibility.

This evidence was somewhat sternly passed down to Judge Johnson's embarrassed see-no-evil colleagues. They hastily convened a five-judge panel to protect themselves from complicity in what the House subcommittee chairman called an assignment procedure that was "unusual, unorthodox and may be improper."

The Judicial Council hired an investigator. He is Joe D. Whitley, a lackadaisical former U.S. attorney in Atlanta who recused himself in the 80's Banca Lavoro scandal -- a suitably Republican choice, but not the type to rock a boat in D.C.

However, when Whitley asked for the chief judge's records to ascertain a pattern of partisanship in assignments, goes the scuttlebutt, Johnson resisted until so ordered by the Judicial Council. Now genial Joe is duty-bound to take testimony from Johnson's possibly intimidated law clerks about any discussions with them about what to tell the investigator.

Logic suggests we now have one furious chief judge. In the midst of all this, and perhaps temperamentally related to it, the vindictive Norma Holloway Johnson launches and pursues a leak investigation even more bizarre and chilling than in the days of the Nixon "plumbers."

The object of the beleaguered judge's rage is Charles Bakaly, once Ken Starr's spokesman. She went after him for supposedly leaking grand jury information; when the Court of Appeals decided that no grand jury secrecy was involved, the angry judge charged him with lying about a non-crime. (Nice irony there.) She wants to brand him a criminal for swearing he did not pass on "non-public" information in talking with a New York Times reporter.

The huge secret that so incenses our out-of-control jurist was that the independent counsel was considering indicting President Clinton. Some secret: that possibility has been common knowledge for years, and Starr's successor makes no bones about it in public.

I have not discussed the case with my colleague, but I am one of the thousands of journalists who discuss non-public information with all kinds of sources every day (sometimes calling it scuttlebutt) for the public purpose of making it public. I see Johnson's vendetta as her intemperate way of getting even with the House, the independent counsel and the press.

Consider: she makes an accusation of criminal contempt and asks the Justice Department to prosecute her target in her court. Reno Justice knows her charge is an egregious mixture of petulance and arrogance, sure to be rejected by a jury, but does not exercise its prosecutorial discretion to decline. Why? Because Reno political appointees owe Johnson plenty for steering Clinton cases to Clinton-appointed judges, and Justice's career lawyers are terrified of her wrath.

So Justice and the out-of-control judge, perhaps in collusion, make the criminal charge petty enough to rate only six months in the slammer, which takes away a defendant's right to trial by jury. Result: the accusation is made by Norma the Plumber, the trial is conducted by Norma the Plumber, the verdict is rendered by Norma the Plumber, and the sentence is meted out by Norma the Plumber.

If that is justice in Washington D.C, something is rotten in the state of the Judicial Branch.

from TPDL 1999-Feb-10, from WorldNetDaily, by Edward G. Oliver:

Judge holds report clearing Starr
No evidence of leaks from independent counsels office

Judge Norma Holloway Johnson is holding a report clearing the Office of Independent the Counsel of charges it leaked grand jury evidence from the Lewinsky investigation to the press, a source tells WorldNetDaily.

Last year, President Clinton's lawyer David Kendall, later joined by Monica Lewinsky lawyer William Ginsburg, made 37 allegations accusing Kenneth Starr of leaking the grand jury testimony of key Clinton aides. Judge Johnson subsequently granted a White House request for a "show cause" hearing which would give Clinton's lawyers access to information held by Starr's office. On appeal , Judge Johnson was told she could not require Starr to reveal his case to White House lawyers but Starr could be made to show he didn't violate rule 6 (e) restricting leaks. As a result, the White House complaint was handed to a court commissioner to investigate. Since then, there hasn't been any closure of the matter and the allegations have been frequently repeated in the media.

The source told WorldNetDaily: "When the commissioner appointed by the judge makes his report, everyone inside the case, the White House, everybody knows that the report has been filed."

The source speculated that the White House is aware of the impending report exonerating Starr and is making new allegations based on a recent story in the New York Times.The Times story quoted people close to the OIC as saying Starr possessed the constitutional authority to secure an indictment against Clinton while the president was still in office. Kendall loudly filed a show cause motion charging Starr again with violating grand jury secrecy. Critics of the legal tactic favored by Kendall say by using a news report, a lawyer can file a routine show cause motion to put the opposing lawyer on the defensive.

The White House has come under increasing suspicion of being behind the leaks that Starr was accused of making. Clinton aide Sydney Blumenthal is currently under fire by senators calling for a Justice Department perjury probe related to White House leaks. House impeachment managers released an affidavit Saturday by journalist Christopher Hitchens which claimed Blumenthal leaked to the press that "Monica Lewinsky was a stalker." Blumenthal denied under oath to Starr's grand jury and to the Senate impeachment trial that he repeated Clinton's negative characterizations of Lewinsky to the media.

from TPDL 1999-Feb-15, from the New York Post, by Vincent Morris:

STARR IN THE CLEAR ON SEXGATE LEAKS: REPORT

WASHINGTON - Independent counsel Kenneth Starr broke no laws when he told reporters about details of his Sexgate probe, a new report says.

The ultra-secret report - prepared by a "special master" who was appointed by a federal judge and whose identity has not been disclosed - was delivered to District Court Judge Norma Holloway Johnson.

Johnson will read it before ruling on whether Starr did anything wrong, according to Newsweek magazine.

The revelation comes amid speculation that Attorney General Janet Reno is contemplating a formal move to dump Starr - a request she'd first have to clear with a judge.

But it also comes as members of Congress - including Republicans who led the charge to throw President Clinton out of office - say Starr should move along quietly and not attempt a criminal indictment of Clinton.

"I would close that book," said Rep. Henry Hyde, the Illinois Republican who led the 13-member team of House prosecutors. "I think indicting the president would not be appropriate."

Hyde, speaking on ABC's "This Week," also complained his case against the president was hampered by the lack of evidence of presidential conspiracy - which was initially suggested by Starr.

In the end, the impeachment trial centered on a legal case resting on Clinton's kinky fling with Monica Lewinsky, which was inappropriate but did not resonate with the public as a high crime.

"We kept hoping that there was going to be more than just Lewinsky because of the heavy emphasis on the sexual aspect," Hyde said.

"We kept expecting something on Travelgate and Filegate ... When it developed that [Starr] did not have anything there that he was going to proceed with, we were left with Lewinsky," said Hyde, who says the trial included "glorious moments" but left him "ambivalent."

Meanwhile, a new book called "Uncovering Clinton: A Reporter's Story" by Newsweek's Michael Isikoff says a "handful of determined enemies" worked to undermine Clinton in pushing the incriminating evidence to Starr. They included New York literary agent Lucianne Goldberg, Chicago banker Peter Smith and lawyer Richard Porter, an associate at the Chicago law firm where Starr bases his private practice.

from TPDL 1999-Feb-19, from the New York Times, by David Johnston and Don Van Natta Jr.:

[TPDL Editors Note: The same reporters and paper that reported last week that Starr was going to indict Clinton which was proved wrong, and was actually leaked by the White House, yet Clinton's lawyer complained to the court that Starr leaked, now this! Does anyone believe any investigation will take place to determine who leaked this? Of course not, the leaker has to be in the Justice Department.]

Reno Considering an Outsider to Lead an Inquiry Into Starr

WASHINGTON -- The Justice Department is considering whether to appoint a special investigative prosecutor to conduct its inquiry into charges of possible misconduct by Kenneth W. Starr, Government officials said Thursday.

One proposal discussed in recent days is the appointment of a United States Attorney, possibly one with solid Republican credentials, who would supervise a team of Justice Department prosecutors and F.B.I. agents, said the officials, who spoke on the condition of anonymity.

Attorney General Janet Reno, who is traveling in South Africa, has not reached any decision on the matter, the officials said. But in recent days her aides have weighed a variety of options should the Attorney General choose to take the investigation of the independent counsel away from the Office of Professional Responsibility, the Justice Department's ethics unit.

The investigation will focus on whether Starr's prosecutors improperly coerced witnesses like Monica S. Lewinsky, disclosed grand jury secrets to news organizations and withheld possible conflicts of interest from Justice Department lawyers at the outset of the Lewinsky inquiry.

The discussions at the Justice Department come in response to a recent exchange of rancorous correspondence between department officials and lawyers in Starr's office. In a letter to Ms. Reno late last week, Starr criticized what he regarded as unauthorized disclosures to news organizations about the Justice Department's inquiry.

Starr also suggested that the Justice Department could not be trusted to conduct an unbiased inquiry, the officials said. Today, Charles G. Bakaly 3d, a spokesman for Starr, would not discuss the matter.

Starr, the officials said, favors an alternate approach that would shift the inquiry beyond Ms. Reno's direct control. Starr prefers the appointment of a lawyer from outside the Justice Department who has broad legal experience, someone agreed upon by Ms. Reno and Starr.

One name mentioned by Starr as the kind of candidate with the stature to carry out such an inquiry was former Attorney General Griffin B. Bell, who served under President Jimmy Carter and is 80 years old. A representative of Bell said Thursday that he was traveling and unavailable for comment.

Some lawmakers have also expressed reservations about whether the Office of Professional Responsibility should supervise the inquiry. Last Friday, Senator Orrin G. Hatch, the Utah Republican who heads the Senate Judiciary Committee, questioned the impartiality of the office, one official said.

In a meeting with Eric H. Holder Jr., the Deputy Attorney General, Hatch expressed dismay at news articles about the inquiry of Starr's conduct in the Lewinsky matter, the officials said, adding that Hatch suggested that the Justice Department consider alternatives to allowing their office to carry out the investigation. Justice Department officials would not comment on the matter.

Should Ms. Reno refer the matter to an outside counsel, it would symbolically bring the Whitewater investigation full circle. Depending on the precise powers granted to such a counsel, Starr and his prosecutors could be forced to submit to the kind of intense scrutiny that Starr has trained on President Clinton and White House aides since August 1994.

Still, it is unclear how much authority would be granted to an outside counsel. There is no provision in the law that permits Ms. Reno to seek an independent counsel to investigate Starr's operation. But Justice Department officials have concluded that under Ms. Reno's statutory authority, she could appoint a prosecutor with the same power that an independent counsel has to convene grand juries and compel testimony under oath.

But the officials said the inquiry, as now envisioned, would probably be administrative rather than criminal. As such, the maximum penalties if wrongdoing is found would probably amount to no more than reprimands, suspensions or dismissals, rather than felony or misdemeanor charges. Nevertheless, the lawyer who leads the inquiry would almost certainly ask Starr's prosecutors to turn over highly sensitive information about how they investigated the President.

The question of whether an Attorney General has the authority to investigate an independent counsel is unresolved. There is no language in the statute that even addresses how an independent counsel would be investigated.

Under the law, the Attorney General is given the sole authority to determine whether to remove an independent counsel.

But Ms. Reno's aides and Starr's prosecutors have argued for months over whether that responsibility also gives her the inherent power to investigate him. This unsettled debate has stalled the Justice Department inquiry of Starr's office, the officials said.

In addition, the Ethics in Government Act of 1978 provides for the appointment of an independent counsel if there are specific criminal accusations against any individual among about two dozen officials who qualify as "covered officials" in the executive branch, like the President and Vice President. Independent counsels are not among the officials designated as "covered" by the law.

In part, the officials said, the deliberations at the Justice Department to move the inquiry beyond the direct control of the Attorney General are an attempt to address Starr's concerns that the department cannot conduct an impartial inquiry.

In his letter of complaint to the department last week, Starr objected to news reports that disclosed the scope of the internal inquiry and the long-running conflict between the independent counsel's office and the Justice Department.

In the past, Ms. Reno has named senior prosecutors to handle difficult cases. She selected Michael R. Stiles, the top Federal prosecutor in Philadelphia, to head an inquiry into the 1992 Ruby Ridge standoff in Idaho. And in 1997, she selected Charles G. La Bella, a senior Federal prosecutor in San Diego, to investigate campaign finance issues.

But finding a prosecutor with Republican credentials late in the second term of a Democratic President's second term could be difficult. One person mentioned as a possible candidate is Robert S. Mueller 3d, the Acting United States Attorney in San Francisco. Mueller, who headed the Justice Department's criminal division during the Bush Administration, said Thursday that he had heard nothing about the matter.

At Starr's office, prosecutors remain highly suspicious of Ms. Reno, associates of Starr said. They challenged the timing of the department inquiry, saying that it surfaced shortly before the Senate voted to acquit Clinton, at a time when Starr appeared to be politically vulnerable. And they argued that some of the accusations have been publicly known for more than a year.

One associate of Starr recently called the Justice Department inquiry "politically motivated" and wondered aloud whether an aggressive investigation of Starr had been quietly encouraged by a vengeful White House. Several weeks ago, another associate of Starr predicted that "the heat would be turned up" on the Office of the Independent Counsel after the Senate acquitted the President.

from TPDL 1999-Feb-20. from the Associated Press via Nando Media, by Michael J. Sniffen:

Frank asks Reno explore whether Starr lied in House testimony

WASHINGTON (February 19, 1999 6:33 p.m. EST http://www.nandotimes.com) - Attorney General Janet Reno has been requested by a Democratic lawmaker to explore whether Independent Counsel Ken Starr lied under oath during testimony to a House committee last year.

The request came in a letter from Rep. Barney Frank of Massachusetts and concerned Starr's answer to a question from Frank about alleged grand jury leaks from Starr's office. The questioning occurred last Nov. 19 as the House Judiciary Committee was considering impeaching President Clinton on the basis of Starr's report about his liaison with former White House intern Monica Lewinsky.

"Given the way Mr. Starr has treated people who have gotten in his way in this investigation ... if he were investigating himself in this matter he would have almost certainly charged himself with perjury," Frank said Friday. "I do not wish to follow Mr. Starr's example of using perjury as a political tool. But I do think ... his disregard of the truth in testifying under oath ... directly relevant to his fitness to continue as independent counsel."

On Friday, Frank released his Feb. 11 letter to Reno.

Meantime, Justice Department officials continued to weigh how to proceed with an investigation of Starr's Lewinsky probe. Justice officials wrote Starr recently stating their intention to launch such an inquiry, but have held off beginning it pending resolution of issues raised by his response, officials have said.

Questioning whether the Justice Department should be investigating him, Starr has proposed that an outside counsel handle the inquiry rather than the department's internal watchdog agency, the Office of Professional Responsibility.

On Thursday, Deputy Attorney General Eric Holder said, "We would leave all of our options open as to who might do such an investigation if one were to be done."

It was learned that the consideration of Starr's demand for an outside counsel is still in a preliminary stage in the department.

The Independent Counsel Act gives Reno authority to remove Starr for good cause and requires her to explain her reasons in writing to Congress. Some department officials have argued that implies that she has authority to investigate Starr.

Reno herself has been out of the country all week on official trips to Mexico and South Africa and has not been able to meet with Starr to discuss the matter, as he requested, it was learned.

Last Friday, Holder met with Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, who backed Starr's bid for an outside investigator. Holder told Hatch the department was trying to reach an accommodation with Starr, according to people familiar with the closed-door meeting.

The New York Times reported Friday that Starr had suggested former Carter administration Attorney General Griffin Bell as a possible candidate for the job.

Publicly, no one in the department or Starr's office would address the sensitive issue.

Starr's office also did not respond to calls seeking his comment on Frank's allegation.

In his letter to Reno, Frank noted that Starr claimed he was hampered in answering Frank's question about leaks because "I am operating under a sealed proceeding."

Frank then asked: "Sealed at your request, correct?"

"No, Mr. Frank," Starr replied. "It is sealed by the chief judge based upon her determination of ..." At that point, Frank interrupted with another question.

Frank noted that U.S. District Judge Norma Holloway Johnson had since unsealed court documents, filed before Starr's testimony, in which Starr's office wrote:

"The Office of the Independent Counsel urges the court to keep the order under seal until the conclusion of the investigation by the special master and findings by this court."

Johnson had named a special master to probe alleged grand jury leaks by Starr's office.

from TPDL 1999-Jan-28, from the New York Post, by Deborah Orin:

Dems Now Face Moral Dilemma

Now comes the real Sexgate test for the Democratic senators who are billed as leaders of conscience.

Like Sens. Daniel P. Moynihan (N.Y.), Joe Lieberman (Conn.) and Bob Kerrey (Neb.) - who have been adamant that Clinton's behavior is despicable that and the truth must be told.

The question is whether any of those respected Democrats are ready to demand a true accounting from Clinton, a public admission that yes, he really did lie to the American people.

Yesterday, those Democrats all marched in lockstep with Clinton Central - and every other Democrat except Wisconsin's Russ Feingold - voting to toss out the Sexgate trial without a single witness.

What a change from a year ago yesterday - right after Sexgate broke - when Moynihan told The Post Clinton couldn't survive if it turned out he had an affair with a 21-year-old intern.

"This is a crisis of the regime and it can only be resolved by the president getting the facts all out," Moynihan said. But that was then. A year later, he isn't talking that way.

And what a change from Lieberman's big speech last September saying that Clinton's behavior "is immoral and it is harmful," and that the nation must show it can tell truth from falsehood.

Yesterday's Republicans-plus-Feingold vote to call witnesses is good news for President Clinton, because it shows there's no way the Senate will come close to a two-thirds vote to oust him.

Now the question is how, if at all, the Senate will agree to censure Clinton - and whether Democrats who have publicly said Clinton lied will now agree to say that as part of a censure.

"I think the Democrats will insist on something too weak for Republicans to sign - and so Clinton will get off with a straight acquittal," predicts a Democratic strategist.

Republican strategist Rich Galen says: "If the censure doesn't say he lied and obstructed justice and only says he behaved badly, then he gets to break out the bongos and cigars again."

Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) is drafting a censure, but word is that it's so soft that it might as well be crafted by fellow Californian Barbara Boxer, an ardent Clinton defender whose daughter is married to Hillary Clinton's brother.

Still if Pat Moynihan and Joe Lieberman insist that the censure be tough, it will be. If they continue to stay quiet and let White House spinners set the tone, Clinton may escape any censure at all.

from TPDL 1999-Jan-26, from the New York Post, by Dick Morris:

Clinton's Lawyer is a Liar, Too

EVEN as the impeachment trial grinds to a close and the president prepares to show his remorse by dancing on its grave, the White House has introduced us to yet another liar in this long, tawdry process - Charles Ruff, President Clinton's lawyer. Throughout the proceedings, defense lawyers Ruff and Cheryl Mills have shown about the same regard for the truth as their famous client.

Charles Ruff was originally slated to be Clinton's attorney general - until it was revealed that, for years, he had not paid the federal nanny tax for his household help. Clinton quickly dumped him, but years later brought him in as counsel to the president, a position which did not require Senate confirmation and conveniently avoided any airing of his deliberate and embarrassing tax evasion.

Cheryl Mills was the subject of a congressional referral to the Justice Department which accused her of perjury and obstruction of justice in congressional proceedings. Sound familiar? She can truly feel Clinton's pain; she's been there, done that.

Some of Ruff's lies are laughs - like his earnest contentions that the DNA test had nothing to do with the president's belated decision to come clean about his relationship with Monica Lewinsky. Particularly humorous was his straight-faced statement that Clinton paid $850,000 to Paula Jones not because he was guilty but because he didn't have the time to deal with a case that had already been dismissed.

In Ruff's shamelessly duplicitous argument before Congress, he deliberately lied about Betty Currie's status in the Paula Jones case. House Manager Asa Hutchison skillfully exposed that lie. Ruff also claimed that he did not know whether the president had actually ever had any conversations with me about the poll which I conducted for him about the Monica Lewinsky matter on Jan. 21, 1998.

Unfortunately for Ruff, the president's own sworn written testimony - prepared by the same Charles Ruff - admits the conversations and exposes that lie. But like his client, Ruff remembers only what is convenient.

During Ruff's presentation, he claimed that the president had no illicit intentions in his ''coaching'' of Betty Currie because, as he put it, ''Betty Currie was never an actual or prospective witness ... In the entire history of the Jones case, Ms. Currie's name had not appeared on any witness list; nor was there any reason to suspect that she would play any role in the Jones case ... In the days following the deposition, the Jones lawyers never listed her, never added her to any witness list.''

Therefore, according to Ruff, the president would have had no motivation to coach Betty because she was of no interest to the Jones lawyers. He was simply refreshing his recollections. (Leave aside for the moment that he was apparently refreshing his recollection by making statements to Betty that he knew - and she knew - were untrue.)

Asa Hutchison caught Ruff's blatant lie and powerfully proved it to the Senate. He held up a copy of the subpoena that was actually issued for Betty Currie only a few days after the president's fateful deposition.

Ruff knew all about that subpoena, but he lied about it anyway.

Then, Hutchison held up the actual witness list, showing Betty Currie's name, which the Jones lawyers had submitted to the Court and to the president's lawyers on Jan. 23, 1998.

Ruff knew all about that witness list, but he deliberately lied about that, too.

When Ruff was caught, he apologized to the Senate for his ''misleading statement.'' In WhiteHousespeak, that means ''I lied to you and got caught.''

Ruff's co-counsel Cheryl Mills claimed that Betty Currie's testimony about retrieving the president's gifts to Lewinsky was consistent. That depends on what the word ''consistent'' means. Hutchison demonstrated that Betty Currie was actually inconsistent.

Only four weeks after she had actually retrieved the gifts from Monica on Dec. 28, 1997, Currie told the FBI that she had picked them up about three months earlier, distancing that event from the Jones subpoena for those gifts in December. Later, she moved it back even further, claiming that it was in the fall of 1997. Finally, Currie admitted that it was sometime in December, 1997. In this White House, that is what passes for consistency.

When Ruff was asked about the poll that I conducted for the president, and our telephone call discussing it, he claimed that he had ''no idea whether the conversation ever occurred or not.'' Once again, Ruff lied. When the president responded to the eighty-one questions from the House Managers, he admitted that the poll was taken and that he discussed it with me in telephone calls.

Not only did Ruff know all about the president's sworn answers, he was the one who prepared them and certified that they were true and accurate. Ruff also supervised the provision of White House documents to Kenneth Starr - including records of telephone calls from the president to me during the relevant time period. Ruff knew about that, too, but he lied, anyway.

If his own client admitted, under oath, that the conversation between the president and me did, indeed, take place and that I did, indeed, conduct a poll, why would Ruff try to suggest otherwise? While one cannot blame Ruff for being skeptical of the veracity of his own client's assertions, we can assume that any admission adverse to the president's interests would likely be true.

Ruff tried to wish away the poll because he wanted to avoid calling attention to the undeniable fact that the president himself was masterminding and coordinating the White House cover-up of the Lewinsky matter.

Most of all, Ruff knew about that.

from TPDL 1999-Jan-26, from the New York Times, by John M. Broder:

Clinton Refuses Senate's 10 Queries

WASHINGTON -- Senate Republicans, seeking to resolve apparent conflicts in testimony by President Clinton and other witnesses, submitted 10 written questions to Clinton Monday. The White House promptly said he would refuse to answer them.

The questions, some of them phrased in confrontational language, explore familiar gaps between the president's account of his relationship with Monica Lewinsky and the testimony of others. Several of the inquiries require the kind of direct, categorical answers that Clinton has so far been reluctant to provide.

The questions were submitted in a letter to Charles Ruff, the White House counsel, by Sen. Trent Lott, R-Miss., the majority leader, and nine other Republican senators. They asked Clinton for "a personal response, in writing and under oath."

Lott said some of the questions cover ground that the president's lawyers addressed in his defense. But the abundant testimony in the case has left some questions that only Clinton can answer, Lott said.

"While counsel for the president has ably attempted to answer these and similar questions from the Senate, only Clinton can provide complete answers to these questions because many of them concern his state of mind or facts that only he is privy to," the senators wrote.

Joe Lockhart, the White House press secretary, reacted angrily to Lott's questions, calling them a political ploy that violated the bipartisan deal on trial procedures that the Senate made three weeks ago. He said the president would not respond to the questions, nor would his lawyers.

"These questions have been offered outside the Senate procedures that were agreed to on a bipartisan basis by all 100 senators," Lockhart said. "We have made clear we will abide by the rules and procedures the Senate laid out. I'd suggest this has more to do with playing politics than with trying to bring this to a fair and expeditious conclusion."

The Senate questions deal with many of the same factual issues as the 81 questions submitted to Clinton by the House Judiciary Committee last fall. Clinton's answers to those questions so infuriated Republicans on the committee that they approved an article of impeachment based on them. But that article was one of two that the full House failed to pass on Dec. 19.

The first question from the Senate Republicans asks Clinton to state whether all of his testimony in the deposition he made on Jan. 17, 1998, in the Paula Jones case was true. The senators demand a yes or no answer.

Clinton, directly and through his lawyers, has said that he did not commit perjury in the Jones deposition, but has never said that all of his testimony was truthful. Ruff has said that "reasonable people" could conclude that the president lied in the deposition, while insisting that he did not perjure himself.

Most of the other inquiries highlight perceived conflicts between Clinton's testimony and the testimony of others, including his secretary, Betty Currie, and two of his aides, John Podesta and Sidney Blumenthal.

The senators ask whether the president believes that Ms. Lewinsky was lying when she said that he had touched her in ways that met the definition of "sexual relations" used in the Jones lawsuit.

Prosecutors from the House and several Republican senators have said the only way to resolve these inconsistencies is to call witnesses before the Senate for questioning, but a Senate Republican aide said the questions were not specifically designed to form a basis for calling witnesses.

"It wasn't driven as a political tool simply designed to show the need for witnesses," the aide said, speaking on condition of anonymity. "But if that is the effect and the president is refusing to answer, so be it."

The senators also ask Clinton to explain why Dick Morris, a former White House political adviser, conducted a poll on Jan. 21, 1998, on whether the American people would forgive him for committing the crimes of perjury and obstruction of justice. When asked by the senators recently why the poll was conducted, Ruff answered, "I don't have a clue."

The senators ask Clinton to explain why Morris conducted the poll and who paid for it.

"Those are good questions," Morris said in a telephone interview Monday night, without offering any further information of the sort the senators sought.

from TPDL 1999-Jan-26, from the Associated Press

WASHINGTON -- Following are the questions submitted to President Clinton Monday by Senator Trent Lott of Mississippi, the majority leader, and nine other Republican Senators:

1. Charles Ruff argued that you did not commit perjury before the grand jury because, inter alia, you were never asked, "Is everything you testified to in the Jones deposition true?"

Is everything you testified to in the Jones deposition true? If not, what did you testify that you believe is not truthful? Please begin your answer with a yes or no.

2. It is uncontroverted that you made the following statements to Ms. Currie on Jan. 18: "Monica came on to me, and I never touched her, right?"

"You were always there when Monica was there, right?"

"I was never alone with Monica, right?"

"You could see and hear everything, right?"

"She wanted to have sex with me, and I cannot do that, right?"

At the time you made these statements, did you believe them to be true? Please provide an answer with respect to each of these statements.

3. You testified before the grand jury that if the Jones lawyers "asked for the gifts (Ms. Lewinsky would) have to give them whatever she had, that that's what the law was." Do you stand by this testimony? If so, how do you explain Ms. Lewinsky's failure to follow your advice?

4. Presidential aide Sydney Blumenthal testified before the grand jury that President Clinton told him that "Ms. Lewinsky came at me and made a sexual demand on me," and that he "rebuffed her," and Ms. Lewinsky "was known as 'the stalker.' "

The deputy chief of staff John Podesta testified before the grand jury that President Clinton did not have sex with Ms. Lewinsky "in any way whatsoever" and provided additional details. You testified before the grand jury, "I said to them things that were true about this relationship."

Are Mr. Podesta and Mr. Blumenthal's testimony concerning their conversations with you accurate? If not, what did you say to your aides? If these statements are accurate, do you stand by your testimony that your statements to them were truthful?

5. When asked why, four days after you testified under oath in the Jones proceeding, Dick Morris conducted a poll on whether the American people would forgive you for committing the crimes of perjury and obstruction of justice, your attorney, Mr. Ruff, answered, "I don't have a clue."

Since your lawyers do not have any insights, could you explain why Dick Morris would have conducted this poll? Who ordered and paid for this poll?

When asked by the House of Representatives about this poll, you answered that Dick Morris "volunteered" to conduct this poll. Could you provide additional details as to the context in which Mr. Morris "volunteered" and the details of any conversation you had with Mr. Morris about conducting such a poll or the results of such a poll?

6. Is it your position that Ms. Lewinsky was lying in her grand jury testimony, her grand jury deposition and her F.B.I. interviews, when she said you engaged in conduct with her that constituted "sexual relations" even under your narrow interpretation of the term in the Jones deposition?

Is it your position that she was also lying when she gave essentially the same account contemporaneously with the occurrence of the events to her friends and counselors?

7. In your 2 A.M. conversation with Ms. Lewinsky about Betty Currie's brother and the possibility of Ms. Lewinsky filing an affidavit, did you mention the possibility that she could say she was visiting Betty Currie or delivering papers?

Why did you mention the possibility of filing an affidavit? How would an affidavit from Ms. Lewinsky that disclosed the true nature of your relationship have helped you achieve your purported objective?

8. At the end of the Jones deposition, Judge Wright admonished the parties that "this case is subject to a protective order regarding all discovery and all parties present, including the witness, are not to say anything whatsoever about the questions they were asked, the substance of the deposition . . . any details, and this is extremely important to the court."

Within hours of Judge Wright's admonition to all parties not to discuss details of the deposition, did you telephone Betty Currie to ask her to make a rare Sunday visit to the Oval Office in which you discussed the deposition? If so, was this consistent with Judge Wright's protective order?

9. In her interviews with the Office of Independent Counsel, Ms. Lewinsky stated that on Jan. 5, 1998, you told her about the affidavit because you had seen 15 others. Did you mean that you had seen previous drafts of Ms. Lewinsky's affidavit, or did you mean that you had seen drafts of other affidavits that were in some way connected to the Paula Jones matter?

If you meant that you had seen drafts of Ms. Lewinsky's affidavit, who gave them to you to review and why were you reviewing them? If you meant that you had seen drafts of other affidavits, whose affidavits were they, and why were you reviewing them?

Did you either personally or through some other person participate in any way in the preparation of Monica Lewinsky's affidavit? If so, what did you or some other person do? Please describe in detail.

10. When did you first learn that Ms. Lewinsky had not turned over the gifts to the Jones lawyers? When did you first learn that Ms. Currie was in possession of the gifts?

from TPDL 1999-Jan-9, from the Associated Press:

Gore Voted To Convict for Jury Lies

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Is lying to a grand jury an impeachable offense? Vice President Al Gore thought so in 1989. So did Defense Secretary William Cohen, as well as Trent Lott and Tom Daschle, now the Senate's Republican and Democratic leaders.

They were all senators when Walter Nixon, then a federal judge, was removed from the bench after being convicted and imprisoned for giving false testimony to a grand jury investigating his dealings with a business associate.

Gore, Cohen and 48 senators still in office -- including Lott, R- Miss., and Daschle, D-S.D. -- voted for at least one of the three impeachment articles lodged against Nixon. Two of the articles were approved, on votes of 89-8 and 78-19.

"Every case is different," said Sen. Chris Dodd, a Connecticut Democrat who voted to convict Nixon but opposes removing President Clinton from office. "You've got a different case, a different set of facts, a different standard," agreed Sen. Kent Conrad, D-N.D., another of the 27 Democrats now in the Senate who voted to convict Nixon.

One of the two impeachment articles the House passed Dec. 19 alleges Clinton lied to the federal grand jury investigating his relationship with Monica Lewinsky. The second article accuses him of obstructing justice in the Paula Jones lawsuit.

The judge's case "is quite analogous" to Clinton's, said Jonathan Turley, a George Washington University law professor who is writing a law journal article on the history of the impeachment process.

Other legal experts disagree, saying presidents and judges are held to different standards under the Constitution. They cite a section of the Constitution that says federal judges, who are appointed for life, "shall hold their offices during good behavior." There is no similar language concerning the president, elected by the whole country for a limited term.

"When a judge has committed perjury ... it was absolutely untenable that he could stay on the bench in a life-tenured position," said Alan I. Baron, who was the House's impeachment counsel in Judge Nixon's case.

The judge, appointed by President Lyndon Johnson, was serving a five-year prison term at the time. His perjury conviction stemmed from his denial that he had talked to a prosecutor about helping his business associate's son, who had been indicted on drug charges. Nixon claimed the questions put to him before the grand jury were confusing. He was acquitted on a separate charge that he took an illegal gratuity.

"When you've got a judge who's had a criminal conviction, he flunks the good behavior provision," said Conrad. "That's an absolute no-brainer."

Reflecting the view of many Democrats, Conrad said a president should be impeached only for offenses that threaten the functions of government. Lying about the national security would be impeachable; lying about a sexual affair is not, he said.

The Senate traditionally deliberates on impeachments in private, but remarks that senators made elsewhere could come back to haunt them. Last week, Republicans circulated comments Gore made in the 1986 impeachment case of Harry Claiborne, a judge imprisoned for tax fraud. Claiborne, like Clinton, said he was a victim of overzealous prosecutors.

Gore said that should "in no way abrogate the finding that Claiborne has engaged in impeachable conduct." Claiborne lost his judgeship.

Another judge, Alcee Hastings, was ousted in 1989, the same year as Nixon, on charges that he conspired to obtain a bribe and lied to gain acquittal in an earlier trial. Hastings is now a Democratic House member from Florida. The Senate votes against Hastings barely reached the two-thirds majority necessary for removal.

The House has voted articles of impeachment against 15 people, 11 of them federal judges. All seven officials convicted by the Senate were judges.

from TPDL 1999-Jan-12, from the Associated Press via Nando Media:

Pens used by 'Untied States Senators' had misprint

JANESVILLE, Wis. (January 11, 1999 8:25 p.m. EST http://www.nandotimes.com) - The pens used by U.S. senators to pledge impartial justice in President Clinton's impeachment trial were stamped with a misprint.

Instead of "United States Senator," the writing on the pens said "Untied States Senator."

"The Senate is like any good customer of ours, and we will reprint the order and make things right," said Michele Szynal, a spokeswoman for The Gillette Co.'s Stationery Products Group in Janesville.

Each of the 100 senators got to keep the black and silver Parker Vector pen used to sign the pledge in the Senate chamber Thursday.

from TPDL 1999-Jan-11, from NewsMax:

Shays Has Little Shame

Quid Pro Quo.

You scratch my back, I'll scratch yours.

The Clinton White House are nasty with their enemies. They also happen to be very good to their friends.

Witness what just happened to Congressman Chris Shays' wife.

Shays, a Republican who represents the tony suburbs in Connecticut, near to New York, milked his decision on the impeachment for every nauseating, publicity minute he could get -- even demanding a sit-down with the President.

After playing Hamlet, Shays voted AGAINST impeachment. No one was surprised.

The Greenwhich Post now reports that Shay's wife, a school teacher, was recently appointed to head the Peace Corps' World Wide Schools Programs.

Shays' press spokesman claimed to the Post that the hiring of Mrs. Shays had no bearing on Shay's vote against impeachment, and nothing to do with the President or the White House.

Right.

And every day Democratic administrations hire the wive's of Republican Congressmen for plum political posts. Do they think we were all born yesterday?

The Peace Corps is headed by Mark Gearan, former director of the White House office of communication.

from TPDL 1999-Jan-12, from USA Today:

Flynt points finger at Bob Barr

Hustler magazine publisher Larry Flynt appeared on CNBC Monday night and held a news conference where he alleged hypocrisy by Rep. Bob Barr, R-Ga., one of the 13 House managers presenting the impeachment case in the Senate. The allegations focused on Barr's past personal conduct and Flynt cited court documents in which Barr invoked his right under Georgia law to refuse to answer any questions under oath about extramarital affairs. Barr denied Flynt's allegations and said he was ''deeply saddened'' by them. He added, ''I have steadfastly worked throughout the impeachment debate to focus attention on substantive issues like perjury and obstruction of justice, and away from lurid personal allegations.''

from TPDL 1998-Dec-24, from the Boston Globe, by John Ellis, Globe Columnist:

Larry Flynt's partners in politics

Four months ago, Salon magazine reported that''diehard Clinton loyalists'' were spreading the word that ''a long-ignored but fearsome tactic has now resurfaced as an element in the president's survival strategy: The threat of exposing the sexual improprieties of Republican critics both in Congress and beyond.

''We're talking about the Doomsday Machine here,'' a close Clinton ally told the on-line publication. ''Once the Doomsday Machine is set in motion, there will be no stopping it. The Republicans with skeletons in their closets must assume everything is known and will come out. So the question is: Do they really want to go there?''

As it happened, they really did want to go there. And in the end, they built a strong enough case to compel a majority of the House of Representatives to impeach President Clinton on one count of perjury and one count of obstruction of justice. They were not deterred by blackmail.

But the Doomsday Machine - or something like it - did its damage. The fact that Representative Dan Burton had fathered a son out of wedlock was exposed and duly reported in the press. Representative Helen Chenoweth's affair with a married man was exposed and duly reported in the press. House Judiciary Committee chairman Henry Hyde's extramarital affair of 30 years ago was exposed and duly reported in Salon, which justified publication by saying ''ugly times require ugly tactics.''

This past weekend, House Speaker-designate Robert Livingston's extramarital affairs cost him his job and his political career. Livingston delivered the news himself, in advance of what he knew would be certain publication on Hustler magazine's Web site. ''Desperate times,'' said Hustler publisher Larry Flynt, ''deserve desperate actions.''

Flynt injected himself into the impeachment process two months ago. He ran a full-page advertisement in The Washington Post offering a reward of up to $1 million for anyone who could prove having had an adulterous sexual encounter with a current member of Congress or a high-ranking government official. The real purpose of the ad, Flynt said, was to gather dirt on GOP legislators to derail the impeachment process.

Flynt is the publisher of what may be the most nihilistic and misogynistic magazine in America. He is also a self-described partisan Democrat, a fan of President Clinton's and a friend of Clinton political strategist James Carville. Many Republican legislators believe he is an active cog in the Doomsday Machine or something like it. But they offer no hard evidence.

Flynt chooses his words carefully when asked if the GOP charges are true. ''I can assure you I've had no contact with the White House,'' he told Howard Kurtz of The Washington Post. ''I don't get my marching orders from them.''

With or without White House marching orders, Flynt's desperate actions will continue. Interviewed Tuesday on National Public Radio's ''Fresh Air,'' Flynt said he would publish the names of as many as 12 politicians whose infidelities he could document. Asked when exactly he would make this information available, Flynt replied: ''In the next couple of days.''

Last Saturday, after he became the first elected president in American history to be impeached, Clinton piously intoned: ''We must stop the politics of personal destruction. We must get rid of the poisonous venom of excessive partisanship, obsessive animosity and uncontrolled anger.''

On Monday the president's press secretary, Joe Lockhart, was asked if the president would call Flynt and request that he desist from publishing the names of Republican legislators who may have had extramarital affairs. No, said Lockhart, he would not.

And so the politics of personal destruction continue apace. Assuming that Flynt has enough evidence to go forward with publication, the reputations of as many as 12 more politicians will be destroyed for the stated purpose of enabling one man to keep an office he has disgraced.

Having lost the vote on impeachment, the president's defenders are now doing everything they can to discredit that vote. In this effort they have been so far surprisingly successful. The president's job approval ratings are at record highs. Two-thirds of the electorate opposes his removal from office. Sentiment for some kind of censure resolution is building in the Senate.

But their efforts reveal the moral bankruptcy of their politics. They have become partners in the politics of Larry Flynt. They are burning the village to save it. And with each passing day, their conduct and complicity in this ongoing disgrace makes censure less likely and conviction more possible.

from TPDL 1999-Jan-22, from the New York Post, by Sam Dealey:

WHEN Larry Flynt went public with the ''hypocrisy'' of Rep. Bob Barr, exposing him as a past adulterer and one of the ''biggest horn dogs in Congress,'' the Georgia Republican seemed certain the White House was in part behind the matter. ''I don't think that one can look at this situation with the close ties ... between the private investigators, the White House, between Sidney Blumenthal and these folks on the outside and come away with any other reasonable conclusion other than the fact that this is part of an overall scheme,'' Barr said. Other Republicans chimed in.

But, as it has with similar charges these past few months, the White House denied the allegations and demanded that Republicans produce proof. ''If they've got evidence, they ought to bring it forward,'' said presidential spokesman Joe Lockhart. ''If not, they ought to knock it off.''

Reporters, too, questioned whether the president's inner circle was passing on dirt. Were White House aides involved? they asked Flynt. ''The only connection that I have got with Bill Clinton is that I voted for him twice. I've never met the man. I've never been to the White House.'' Presidential pit-bull James Carville? ''Well of course I am friends with James, we made a movie together ... But I've never discussed what I am doing with James.'' How about Clinton dirt-digger Terry Lenzner? ''No.''

But asked if he knew Deputy Secretary of State Strobe Talbott, Flynt said, ''I haven't seen Strobe Talbott in years. ... But he is married to a sister of a very good friend of mine.''

Surprisingly, that red flag went unnoticed.

So who is Talbott's brother-in-law? His name is Cody Shearer, and a review of his White House connections reveals the possible workings of a new plumber operation.

A self-styled ''free-lance journalist'' (although he hasn't published in nearly a decade), Shearer is a former business associate of Terry Lenzner's Investigative Group International - the premier opposition-research firm that Dick Morris calls ''the White House secret police.''

Lenzner's connections with Clinton go to the seamier side of politics. The Clinton campaign hired his firm in 1992 to do ''opposition research,'' a euphemism for dirt-digging. Since '94, the president's personal lawyers have had Lenzner on the payroll, reportedly searching under the beds and sniffing through the panties-drawers of Paula Jones, Monica Lewinsky and members of Hillary's ''Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy,'' including Starr's team.

Lenzner and Shearer are also old tennis buddies from Washington's tony St. Albans Tennis Club. Shearer's a close friend of Sidney Blumenthal's, too, according to published accounts.

Could Shearer be passing Flynt the goods on GOP members? Neither Shearer nor Flynt returned calls seeking comment. But if this was the case, it wouldn't be the first time Shearer smeared a Clinton critic.

In 1997, Cody Shearer tried to broker a deal between Lenzner and the Cheyenne-Arapaho tribes to investigate the Senate's Deputy Whip, Don Nickles (R-Okla.), who was a member of the committee probing an alleged shakedown of Indian tribes by the Clinton-Gore campaign in 1996. (Lenzner demanded $17,000 for the job, but tribal leaders ultimately decided not to hire him.)

Shearer has tried to ingratiate himself with this White House before. Last summer, the State Department learned he was doing some free-lance negotiatingwith Serb and Muslim leaders on partitioning Bosnia - all while claiming he had the backing of the Clinton administration. Talbott himself had to write his brother-in- law to tell him to knock it off.

The Shearer connections with the White House don't end there. Cody's twin sister Brooke - Strobe Talbott's wife - has been a friend of Hillary's since their college days. Brooke used to work for Terry Lenzner as an investigator, where her specialty was dumpster-diving, the fine art of sifting through the trash, and she reportedly remains in close contact with her old boss.

Brooke joined the Clinton's 1992 campaign as an aide to Hillary. ''Sometimes at the end of the day, when Bill telephoned,'' she reminisced of the campaign, ''we'd be laughing so loud, doing imitations and carrying on, that he'd say, 'You guys sound like you're having a lot more fun than I am.''' After the campaign, she headed up Hillary's White House fellows program, and later moved on to become a senior advisor to the Interior Department.

The Shearer family has yet another relative close to the president: Cody and Brooke's brother, Derek, an old Oxford chum of Bill's. They've kept up over the years: Derek Shearer played an instrumental role in the 1992 campaign. After serving on the transition team, he took a job at the Commerce Department, and was later awarded the ambassadorship to Finland. ''I want to be known as the ambassador who brought Ben and Jerry's to Finland,'' he said.

And then there's Strobe Talbott himself. He also roomed at Oxford with Bill Clinton while they were both Rhodes Scholars, and went on to Yale Grad School when both Clintons were at Yale Law. Prior to joining the Clinton administration, Talbott was a Time columnist who carried a lot of water for his old pal's 1992 presidential campaign.

Days after the Lewinsky story broke, ex-Clinton aide George Stephanopoulos first warned of a possible scorched-earth defense: ''The president said he would never resign, and I think some around him are willing to take everybody down with him.''

Could this be the makings of a not-so-vast left-wing conspiracy, or is it all Shearer coincidence?

from TPDL 1999-Feb-21, from NewsMax 1999-Feb-20:

Stephanopoulos Storms Out

George Stephanopoulos is not use to hard questions.

After all, he used to be Bill Clinton's official spokesman, and the press has had only softball questions for Bill. George still serves as a Clinton apologist,(deftly criticizing Bill once in a while in an effort to claim "objectivity"), but is paid by ABC as an official "commentator."

George doesn't like hard questions, apparently.

The last time George was deposed by Judicial Watch, Larry Klayman's legal watchdog group, George refused to answer questions and mocked Klayman and his attorneys.

Judicial Watch has brought a $90 million class action suit against the White House for misusing FBI files. George was a key player at the White House when the files were taken from the FBI.

The judge didn't take too kindly to George's behavior, and slapped him with financial penalties, and a writ to return for another deposition.

George turned up today for his second try, and was not accomodating.

A Judicial Watch fax states that George "refused to answer questions and unilaterally walked out of the deposition."

The ABC News commentator has great for respect for the legal process and the court, we note.

from the New York Times, 1998-Dec-21:

A Time to Heal Our Nation

By GERALD FORD and JIMMY CARTER

It is proverbial that old men plant trees as an act of faith, precisely because they know they won't themselves live to sit under their shade.

In this spirit, we believe the time has come to put aside political differences and plant seeds of justice and reconciliation.

There is precedent for this, for during our Presidencies each of us made difficult and controversial decisions in efforts to heal national divisions -- the pardoning of President Richard Nixon and the granting of amnesty for those who had avoided the Vietnam draft.

In the wake of President Clinton's impeachment by the House of Representatives, America once again suffers from a grievous and deepening wound.

Our people are angrily divided.

Our political institutions are called into question. Public confidence erodes under waves of personal smearmongering. Against such a backdrop of inflamed emotions, we are convinced that the public good requires a prompt and fair resolution of the impeachment issue.

While our acts of pardon or clemency are not directly analogous to the decision pending before the Senate, how that body resolves the issue can have similar benefits of healing and finality.

Fortunately, Senate procedures, through their flexibility and freedom, provide the means to end this national ordeal in ways that can uphold the rule of law without permanently damaging the Presidency.

Before the senators make history, we hope they will first turn to history for help in devising what would be, in effect, a unique punishment for a unique set of offenses.

One hundred and thirty years have passed since the last impeachment of an American President.

At the time of President Andrew Johnson's 1868 trial, as now, Senate Standing Rules and the Rules of Impeachment permitted almost all motions and matters of evidence to be determined by a majority vote. (By way of example, early in the proceedings, Chief Justice Salmon Chase, who presided over Andrew Johnson's Senate trial, put to a vote the question of whether to delay the trial for 40 days as requested by Johnson's lawyers. Members responded by granting only 10 days.)

Most recent impeachment cases involving judges have been resolved expeditiously by having a trusted bipartisan committee hear the evidence, either in public or private sessions, before making a recommendation to the full body for its consideration.

How might all this bear on the current situation? In addition to immediate dismissal of the charges against President Clinton, there are four alternatives for the Senate to weigh: a trial followed by acquittal; a trial followed by conviction and removal from office; a trial followed by censure, or censure without a trial.

As intended by the founders, a two-thirds majority presents a formidable obstacle for the advocates of conviction and removal.

Moreover, the sharp divisions rending the House, though sincerely held and based on principle, do not bode well for a quick or clear decision on either acquittal or removal from office.

However one now supposes a trial may end, it seems inevitable that by rehashing the lurid evidence of President Clinton's misconduct, we will only exacerbate the jagged divisions that are tearing at our national fabric.

Somehow we must reach a conclusion that most Americans can embrace and that posterity will approve. Make no mistake, the judgment of history does matter.

It matters profoundly.

And impeachment by the full House has already brought profound disgrace to President Clinton.

Whatever happens in the near future will do little to affect history's judgment of him. But he is not alone in standing before the bar of judgment.

Our political system, too, is on trial.

Can we find within ourselves the will, the vision, the generosity and, yes, the courage to resolve the present crisis in a way that makes Americans proud of their leaders, their institutions and themselves?

It is with this in mind that we personally favor a bipartisan resolution of censure by the Senate.

Under such a plan, President Clinton would have to accept rebuke while acknowledging his wrongdoing and the very real harm he has caused.

The Congressional resolution should contain language stipulating that the President's acceptance of these findings -- including a public acknowledgment that he did not tell the truth under oath -- cannot be used in any future criminal trial to which he may be subject. It may even be possible for the special prosecutor publicly to forgo the option of bringing such charges against the President when Mr. Clinton leaves office.

Some may object that a censure can be repealed by a future Congress, and is thus rendered meaningless.

They underestimate the power of the modern news media to foster indelible images in the public memory.

In any event, no one can undo President Clinton's impeachment by the full House.

It is the genius of our Constitution that its authors provided us a governing charter whose legal mechanisms permit the nation to heal itself, so long as the end result is both justice and grace. Clearly, the American people expect and desire an outcome that is firm, fair and untainted by partisan advantage.

That is the challenge before us.

How we meet that challenge will go a long way toward healing our divided nation.

Gerald Ford and Jimmy Carter were the 38th and 39th Presidents of the United States

from TPDL 1998-Dec-24, from the Washington Times, from "Inside Politics: News and political dispatches from around the nation" by Greg Pierce:

[...]

Conspiracy theory

Edwin Meese, who was attorney general under President Reagan, says censure of the president, in place of a Senate trial, is a terrible idea.

"I hate to say this because of my respect for both President Ford and President Carter, but actually what they are advocating is the formation of a conspiracy to circumvent the Constitution. And I think it's absolutely wrong," Mr. Meese said on the America's Voice television network.

"There is no constitutional basis. I can't think of anything that is worse. We could have a trial for six months in the Senate, or we could have all kinds of other things that might happen that have been conjured up by people talking about this, but I don't think anything would be worse in terms of the destruction of the separation of powers in terms of a violation of the clear-cut constitutional mandate of the responsibility of Congress than that kind of a circumvention that has been suggested."

[...]

from TPDL 1998-Dec-12, from Investors Business Daily, Inc. 12/14/98 [sic]:

The Apologizer In Chief

Minutes before the House Judiciary Committee began passing articles of impeachment against him Friday afternoon, President Clinton entered the Rose Garden to issue another in his series of apologies. It was like all the rest -devoid of substance and sincerity.

Apologies are supposed to be from the heart. They should be genuine. But the president's was neither. In fact, he's sorry only when he has to be.

We're not really sure what Clinton's so ''profoundly sorry'' about, though, only that he is. He said the apology was ''for all I have done wrong in words and deeds.'' And he professed his ''profound remorse for what our country is going through.''

Yet he never names what he's sorry for. For his tryst with Monica Lewinsky? For lying in his deposition in the Paula Jones suit? For lying to the independent counsel's grand jury? Or, more likely, sorry that the whole mess threatens his presidency?

We wish he had the courage to at least name the sin he's telling us he's sorry for.

As before, the president feels the need to apologize only because his power is at risk. The conventional wisdom says he's been apologizing only because he was caught - not out of any true remorse.

But it's his political power that he's holding on to with a death grip. He's been ''caught'' for his indiscretions with Paula Jones and Kathleen Willey. Yet he hasn't apologized to the American people and Congress for his actions toward them. Nor has he told those women specifically that he's sorry.

Yes, Jones' and Willey's complaints remain unproven allegations. Which is exactly why he doesn't and won't apologize to those women: his presidency is not threatened by them. Would Clinton be making apologies had the Lewinsky affair not been made public because he lied about it in a deposition?

Not a chance.

With his political life now dangling over the precipice, he's reduced to lobbying the House - because he knows a floor vote will be close - and the American public - which is beginning to lean more toward impeachment. A Rasmussen Research poll shows that 52% of all Americans oppose impeachment.

Previous polls from several sources had at least two-thirds of Americans opposing impeachment.

There's no doubt that every word of Clinton's address was scripted. This president lives by the poll and focus group. Not a word is uttered before its impact is tested, evaluated and approved. And of course vetted by the legions of Clinton lawyers.

What the polls and focus groups failed to tell Clinton is what he should already know: Contrition without confession is hollow indeed.

He walked away from Friday's four-minute statement with his head down, shoulders hunched forward. He ignored searing questions from the media: ''If the impeachment goes to the Senate, Mr. President, will you be willing to resign to save this country from the process?''

The president of the United States of America appeared weary and beaten. Maybe it was for effect.

But it might be that he is finally waking up to the fact that his actions have consequences - whether he admits to those actions or not.

from TPDL 1998-Dec-12, from the Chicago Tribune:

'Doomsday' plan being prepared for trial in Senate

White House drafting a back-to-the wall strategy

The Chicago Tribune reported yesterday that the House Judiciary Committee will vote at least one article of impeachment against President Clinton, and that the White House is preparing a "doomsday" scenario in case the full House goes along.

"As the White House sees it, the American public wakes up the morning after the House impeachment vote to learn that the Monica Lewinsky matter is not going away, but rather will be continued at a Senate trial that could last well into 1999 and paralyze any serious legislative work.

"The White House hopes that the public then will direct its fury against the Republican Party after, of course, being encouraged to do so by the White House spin operation.

"Former White House Press Secretary Mike McCurry, now a political consultant, says he believes most Americans soon will look up from their Christmas shopping and say, "The Congress is about to do what?"

" 'The House of Representatives is going to have to wake up,' McCurry said at a recent political conference, adding that the public will take its revenge in the next election.

The impeachment vote, he said, 'will define who controls the House after the 2000 elections.'

from TPDL 1998-Dec-9, from the New York Post, by Deborah Orin:

First Day of Defense was Pretty Offensive

WASHINGTON - President Clinton's men are still stonewalling - they won't admit the lies, they won't admit the sex with Monica Lewinsky and they're still playing "Slick Willie" word games.

That makes it very hard to cut a "plea bargain" with Republicans for censure instead of impeachment - and there were hints yesterday's White House defense session could backfire.

Most Americans agree Clinton lied, but the latest 184-page White House defense papers refuse to concede that and insist that it's just about "President Clinton's denial of a private indiscretion."

The latest White House defense does nothing to answer Monica Lewinsky's graphic account of how she had sex with Clinton, even by his narrow definition.

Instead it claims two witnesses can honestly recall things differently.

Really? On such graphic descriptions of sex and cigars and other hanky-panky? With a president famed for his memory?

Also, the White House defense panel of professors from Harvard, Yale and Princeton came in and talked down to the House Judiciary Committee members as if they were stupid college freshmen.

That made a mockery of the official White House line, which was that this was a day of contrition and reaching out. The profs just alienated the GOP moderates they were supposed to be wooing.

Princeton's Sean Wilentz threw down the gauntlet by claiming that anyone backing impeachment risks "going down in history with the zealots and fanatics ... for your cravenness."

Republicans were livid. Rep. George Gekas (Pa.) said Wilentz's remark was "despicable" and Rep. Mary Bono (R-Calif.) pointedly said: "I won't be labeled a zealot because I do believe it was perjury."

They were equally skeptical when boyish White House scandal lawyer Greg Craig insisted Clinton didn't lie when he claimed he couldn't recall being alone with Lewinsky, with one Republican saying that simply "is not credible."

Bottom line: The White House stuck to its story and nobody's mind was changed, so it's really down to a test of hard-knuckle pressure politics.

"I don't really think anything that happens in this committee matters. It's really simply about whether they have the votes," said Democratic consultant Joe Trippi.

"I think there's a chance that this could become a runaway train," he added, saying he now believes there's even a "5 percent chance" that Clinton could actually get kicked out of office.

Few would go so far. But it appeared that the first day of Clinton's defense did nothing to help his cause.

from TPDL 1998-Dec-30, from the Washington Times, from "Inside Politics: News and political dispatches from around the nation" by Greg Pierce:

Dishonest historians

Earlier in the week, this column noted a George magazine report that presidential adviser Sidney Blumenthal orchestrated the "nonpartisan" ad in which more than 400 historians declared there was no reason to consider impeachment of the president.

The ad appeared in the New York Times just days before the November elections.

Now, the American Enterprise adds another piece to the puzzle showing just how dishonest were the historians who organized the statement.

The media "missed one aspect of the affair: the invaluable assistance these 'historians speaking as historians' -- as one organizer put it -- received from People for the American Way (PAW), a left-wing activist group .." the American Enterprise says in its January-February issue.

"Though the historians neglected to mention it in their ad, or in their press releases, or at their press conference, they were only able to publish their Times ad because PAW's tax-exempt foundation purchased it for them and served as the receiver for the donations that paid for it. The mailing address given in the historians' ad is actually the Washington office of PAW, though nobody in the major media seems to have bothered to discover this. Somehow we suspect that if 400 non-liberal scholars took out such an ad and listed an address that in fact belonged to, say, the Christian Coalition, the information might come out in news stories."

Not this time

The contradictions of late have apparently become too much for Katha Pollitt, columnist for the Nation.

"At war? Did I miss something," Ms. Pollitt writes in the leftist journal's Jan. 11 issue. "Sheila Jackson Lee offered thanks to 'our American troops who are now fighting for our liberty.' Saddam Hussein threatens our liberty? Is it too much to ask that a member of the House recognize that a president who bombs foreign countries without consulting Congress is the threat to liberty she ought to be worrying about? This is the sort of paranoid jingoism progressives can usually be counted on to mock. Not this time: Jesse Jackson, rallying the anti-impeachment crowd in Washington, passed over the airstrikes entirely in favor of weepy revivalism. ... Not a peep from the 400 historians who signed Sean Wilentz and Arthur Schlesinger's anti-impeachment petition, with its reverential defense of the institution of the presidency, presumably even as embodied in some $500 million worth of airstrikes."

Ms. Pollitt suggests that the left's support for President Clinton has been a one-way street: "Why are 'progressives' always the ones who rally around the president without getting -- or even asking for -- anything in return?"

[... for laughs:]

Lousy deal

Serge Schmemann of the New York Times spotted this T-shirt in Moscow: "The I.M.F. Gave My Country $45 Billion, and All I Got Was This Lousy T-shirt!"

from TPDL 1998-Dec-9, from the Wall Street Journal:

Billable Hours?

Most people watching the President's defense yesterday and today before the House Judiciary Committee probably think most of those witnesses are merely friendly academic experts and the like. News publicity, for instance, describes Nicholas Katzenbach as the "former attorney general" or retired IBM vice president James Hamilton as a former Watergate counsel.

True, but not true enough. Allow us to fill out the resumes for the witness list assembled by White House counsels Charles Ruff and Gregory Craig.

Mr. Katzenbach was co-chair of President Clinton's initial legal defense fund. Mr. Hamilton was of course Vincent Foster's lawyer and attorney for former DNC Chairman Don Fowler. William Taylor is not only a former ABA official, but a lawyer for former Clinton Chief of Staff Mack McLarty, for Ron Brown's son Michael and for former DNC finance chair Marvin Rosen.

Edward S.G. Dennis is no doubt co-chair, as advertised of the Corporate Investigations and Criminal Defense Practice Group, but also represents Mrs. Clinton's former chief of staff Maggie Williams. Richard Ben-Veniste is not only a Watergate alum and ubiquitous cable talk-show pundit, but also attorney for Webster Hubbell and former DNC finance chair Terry McAuliffe.

While we don't know whether any of the lawyer/witnesses have quite enough brass to bill their clients for the hours spent before Henry Hyde and Co., we do wonder where they draw the line between their role as disinterested experts and their role as paid mouthpieces.

Indeed, we are intensely curious about how many of them have signed a joint defense agreement with President Clinton, allowing them to share their clients' legal secrets with the President's lawyers to present a united front against Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr. It seems to us bizarre that parties to a joint defense agreement would call each other's lawyers as expert witnesses, but Mr. Clinton's legal team has set a lot of precedents.

from TPDL 1998-Nov-23, from WorldNetDaily, by Joseph Farah:

Nail Clinton on bribery, says Watergate counsel
Zeifman provides 3 counts to Barr

The former chief counsel for the House Judiciary Committee during Watergate says President Clinton should be impeached for three new counts of bribery not presented in Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr's referral to Congress.

Jerome Zeifman, a Democrat who served the impeachment inquiry along with former White House Counsel Bernard Nussbaum and first lady Hillary Clinton, presented his 19-page "memorandum of law and facts on bribery as an impeachable offense" to Rep. Bob Barr, R-GA, of the House Judiciary Committee late last week.

"In his conduct of the office of president of the United States, William J. Clinton has given or received bribes with respect to one of more of the following," he writes in a memorandum of law and facts on bribery as an impeachable offense. Modeling the language of his memorandum as closely as possible to the articles of impeachment drafted against Richard Nixon, Zeifman writes:

"In his conduct of the office of the president of the United States, William J. Clinton has given or received bribes with respect to one or more of the following:

"(1) Approving, condoning or acquiescing in the surreptitious payment of bribes for the purpose of obtaining the silence or influencing the testimony of Webster Hubbell as a witness or potential witness in criminal proceedings.

"(2) Approving, condoning or acquiescing in the use of political influence by Vernon Jordan in obtaining employment for the purpose of obtaining the silence or influencing the testimony of Monica Lewinsky as a witness or potential witness in civil or criminal proceedings; and

"(3) Approving, condoning or acquiescing in the receipt of bribes in connection with the issuance of an executive order which had the effect of giving Indonesia a monopoly on the sale of certain types of coal."

According to Zeifman, in early June 1994, Webster Hubbell -- a former law partner of Hillary Clinton and the president's closest friend -- was reportedly set to begin cooperating with special Whitewater prosecutors. By the end of the month, he began withholding Whitewater documents and personal financial records. Zeifman suggests bribery, and only bribery, explains the sudden turnabout.

"During the same period in which Hubbell stopped cooperating with the prosecutors, James Riady (of Indonesia's Lippo Group) had responded to a White House request to provide financial support for Hubbell," Zeifman writes.

Zeifman cites Secret Service records showing that James Riady visited the White House every day from June 21 through June 25, 1994, and saw President Clinton at least twice during that period. On June 23, Riady had breakfast with Hubbell and then visited the White House. Later that day, Hubbell and Riady had a midday luncheon meeting at Washington's Hay-Adams Hotel. James and his father Mochtar Riady were the largest contributors to Bill Clinton's 1992 presidential campaign and are suspected of being behind the funneling of millions of dollars in illegal foreign campaign contributions into the 1996 re-election campaign as well.

On Monday, June 27, the first day of the new work week after Riady had visited Clinton, a Riady company, Hong Kong China Ltd., sent Hubbell $100,000, according to Zeifman. During the nine months between his resignation as Associate Attorney General in the Justice Department and his guilty plea on fraud and tax charges in December 1994, Hubbell received a total of more than $500,000 from a dozen enterprises, many of which were controlled by Clinton associates or major Democratic donors.

All told, Hubbell received $1 million during that period before he went to jail.

"That the solicitation of payments to Hubbell were the culmination of prolonged White House efforts to conceal evidence relating to Whitewater provides even more compelling reasons for the impeachment of President Clinton," says Zeifman. "After the death of (Vincent) Foster, Hubbell was singularly in possession of evidence of wrongdoing by the president and Mrs. Clinton dating back to Arkansas; some of which still remains concealed."

Zeifman recalls that Foster -- then Mrs. Clinton's law partner -- during the 1992 presidential campaign assembled all the information on Whitewater "to help the Clintons respond to inquiries from the press and charges from other candidates."

"The (Whitewater) files ... were removed without the firm's consent and were later stored in Hubbell's Washington home after he was appointed Associate Attorney General," observes Zeifman. "In addition, Hubbell and Foster were able to obtain computer print-outs of the Rose Law Firm's billing records relating to Hillary Clinton's representation of Madison Guaranty."

When these records were subpoenaed by Kenneth Starr's predecessor, Special Counsel Robert Fiske, in early 1994 and by the Senate Whitewater Committee in October 1995, they could not be found.

Zeifman also believes that Starr's referral to the Congress provides substantial evidence that Clinton used his influence to secure and solicit employment for Lewinsky, another case of bribery.

Black's Law Dictionary defines bribery as "the offering, giving, receiving, or soliciting of a thing of value to influence action as an official or in discharge of legal or public duty." The "gift" would not have to have a direct monetary value, according to the legal definition. It could be a job -- such as the one with the Pentagon.

In addition to those two counts, Zeifman raises another little-understood scandal first reported by Land Rights Letter in 1996 by Sarah Foster, now a staff writer for WorldNetDaily. This was the executive order signed by President Clinton on Sept. 16, 1996 -- six weeks before the presidential election -- designating as "wilderness" some 1.7 million acres of federal land in southwest Utah.

By creating the Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument as a wilderness area, Clinton effectively placed the area off-limits to mining, logging, road building, and any other development. This land contains one of the only known large deposits of clean-burning coal in the world -- coal so low in sulfur and other pollutants it meets the strict environmental standards established during the Clinton administration by the Environmental Protection Agency. The New York Times reported that the deposits could be worth over $1 trillion.

The second-largest deposit of such coal in the world is in Indonesia, where development has been under way for several years.

Zeifman suggests there is a prima facie case for bribery -- once again by Indonesia's billionaire Riady family. The Riadys, who are suspected of spying for the Chinese government and are closely connected with Beijing (the Riadys are native Chinese, not Indonesian), stand to benefit big-time from Clinton's executive order. China will be a major market for this clean-burning coal.

"With a stroke of his pen he wiped out the only significant competition to Indonesian coal interests in the world market," Sarah Foster noted in 1996.

Zeifman adds: "A few weeks after the signing of the executive order, a person inexplicably identified as an unemployed gardener gave the Clinton campaign $400,000. It was not until after the president's re-election that the Democratic National Committee promised to refund the money -- after it was revealed it had come from Arief Wiriadmata and his wife, Soraya, whose father is an executive of the Riady's Lippo Group.

Zeifman calls that a "substantial circumstantial" case of bribery.

Using Watergate-era language to craft his articles of impeachment, Zeifman points out that Congress is not bound by the rules of evidence applied in criminal courts.

"However, even if Congress were to comply with criminal rules of evidence, the fact that President Clinton signed the executive order under such questionable conditions is substantial circumstantial evidence that the (Grand) Escalante National Monument is a 'quid pro quo' related to the receipt of illegal campaign contributions from the Riadys, the Lippo Group and others with financial interests in Indonesia," concludes Zeifman.

Zeifman believes Clinton must be held to a much higher standard than those spelled out under election laws.

"The constitutional standard for impeachment for bribery as a 'High Crime,' like all other 'High Crimes,' does not require the commission of a felony; or proof of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt," he writes. "Just as the standard imposed for Nixon's impeachment by the House Judiciary Committee was not based on the commission of a felony by the president himself, so too in 1989 the committee relied on precedents that were more than 200 years old to bring impeachment charges for the High Crime of bribery against Judge Alcee Hastings. ... In 1983, Judge Hastings, who had been appointed by President Carter, was acquitted by a Florida Jury of charges he had received a bribe of $150,000. In 1989, based on the same charges, he was impeached by the House, convicted by the Senate, and removed from office."

from TPDL 1998-Nov-14, from CNS 13 November, 1998, by Judy Cooley, CNS Senior Staff Writer:

Clinton Ignoring the 81 Questions

(CNS) - White House spokesman Joe Lockhart said he is "not aware" that President Clinton has even looked at the 81 questions the House Judiciary Committee asked him to answer for the impeachment inquiry. Lockhart had earlier said the president would complete the impeachment questionnaire as early as this week, according to published reports. The questions ask the president to confirm or deny allegations made in Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr's report.

from TPDL 1998-Nov-30, from the Washington Times, from "Inside Politics: News and political dispatches from around the nation" by Greg Pierce:

The weasel king

"Hoping that everyone would be too stupefied from overeating to pay any attention, the president snuck out the answers to [Judiciary Committee Chairman] Henry Hyde's 81 'admit or deny' questions on Friday," notes New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd.

"His answers about the Lewinsky affair were crisp, unambiguous and revealing. He finally stepped up to the plate and accepted responsibility.

"Nah. Just kidding," the columnist said, adding:

"He is the weasel king. Those old Clintonian phrases flow trippingly from the tongue: I do not recall ... I do not believe ... I may have talked about what to do in a nonlegal context at some point in the past, but I have no specific memory of that conversation ... I have no recollection ... I cannot be absolutely sure ... I cannot respond to this inquiry because of the vagueness of its terms ('indirect,' 'potential,' 'could be involved'). Tactical brain death."

from TPDL 1998-Nov-29, here are Clinton's 81 Answers to Hyde's 81 Questions.

from WorldNetDaily, from Joseph Farah's Between the Lines of 1998-Nov-13:

Rise up angry, America

"House Speaker-to-be Bob Livingston, R-La, is talking tough about President Clinton's behavior, but privately he has suggested he has little interest in pursuing an impeachment inquiry during his speakership."

That's what the Washington Post reported yesterday. For the record, Livingston's staff has been telling angry WorldNetDaily callers that the story is not true. It's a trick of the liberal media. But, of course they say, "don't quote me on that".

Well, I'll tell you what. This guy isn't even speaker yet and I'm already sick of him. Clearly he's talking out of both sides of his mouth -- telling the Washington Post readers what they want to hear, and WorldNetDaily readers what they want to hear.

Livingston says he hasn't even discussed the issue of impeachment with House Judiciary Committee Chairman Henry Hyde. Apparently Livingston was too busy politicking for the job to get involved in the matter of high crimes and misdemeanors committed by the chief executive.

His aides say he'll leave the issue to Hyde.

But is that an improvement? Judicial Watch Chairman Larry Klayman got impatient this week with Hyde, who has never responded to the organization's independent report on four scandals that make Monica Lewinsky look like a temptress in a teapot. Finally, yesterday, Hyde wrote back to Klayman that his staff has reviewed the Judicial Watch report.

"Judicial Watch's Interim Report, and Evidence and Documentation Contained Therein, has been received by the Committee and forwarded to our chief investigator, David Schippers," Hyde's letter said. "I am advised by Mr. Schippers that every page of your submission has been reviewed by him and his staff. At this time, no decision has been made as to whether to call Judicial Watch as a witness before the Committee. If the Committee should so decide, you will be notified immediately."

Pretty bizarre. Klayman's report offers substantial evidence of Clinton administration corruption at the highest levels, abuse of power, and illegal activity that should cross even John Conyers' threshold of impeachable offenses. So why is Hyde entertaining the idea of limiting the inquiry to Monica Lewinsky?

Why do the Republicans avoid Filegate, Chinagate, Commercegate, Travelgate, Trustgate, IRSgate, Campaigngate, Fostergate, Browngate, Renogate, and on and on? What do they fear? Are they afraid they will be implicated? Are they afraid they will become victims off the Clinton Secret Police? Do they fear IRS audits -- or worse?

Larry Klayman has laid out four juicy scandals full of violations of the law. He's done the committee's work for it -- better than Kenneth Starr has in the Monica Lewinsky affair.

So why are the Republicans pretending -- making believe that the most egregious Clinton scandal involves his inability to keep his zipper up? What are they waiting for? The election's over. They can't be accused of going after Clinton in a political season. Why are they so self-conscious, so timid? Don't they realize what is at stake -- the very future of America and the rule of law?

Some suggest Hyde's approach is merely a strategic ploy -- that he knows Clinton will never agree to answer his 81 questions and, therefore, all bets are off on the limitation of the scope of the hearings. I don't think so. This is a very tough White House to outmaneuver politically. Should Hyde decide to broaden the hearings at this point, the White House spinmeisters would have a field day picking that development apart.

How many Americans realize that Hyde's offer to limit the scope and witnesses in the hearings was conditional upon Clinton answering the questions truthfully and completely? Very few, thanks to the pathetic job of reporting by the establishment press.

So what goes on? Will the American people ever learn the truth? Is the whitewash complete? Is the fix in? Has Clinton performed yet another Houdini act? Or is it more like the Republicans have played Keystone Kops once again?

It's beginning to look pretty grim. Does anyone believe Livingston offers the leadership necessary to see this nation through one of its gravest political crises? Does anyone think the Republican leadership in the Senate has the chutzpah to see this thing through?

Clinton has the whole game rigged. Is he that good? Is he that powerful? Is he that scary?

Rise up angry, America. There's no leadership in Washington. But there are plenty of followers. Maybe it's time to tell them where to go.

from TPDL 1998-Oct-27, from the New York Post, by Vincent Morris and Marilyn Rauber:

Prez Tried to Block Starr Gazing at Paula Tape

WASHINGTON - Despite President Clinton's promise to cooperate with Sexgate prober Kenneth Starr, his lawyers secretly tried to stop Starr from seeing Clinton's videotaped testimony in the Paula Jones case.

New documents released yesterday show how Clinton's lawyers tried to stop Starr - who by this time was investigating the sex-and- lies Monica Lewinsky scandal - from obtaining damaging documents in the Jones case.

At one point, Clinton lawyer Bob Bennett told the court Starr cannot be trusted with the videotape of the president's deposition - in which he was grilled about Lewinsky and other reported affairs, the documents show.

Bennett said he was not comfortable with handing over sealed documents to Starr, but lost when Judge Susan Webber Wright overruled him.

Though most of the facts in the Jones case have already been made public, new details revealed in yesterday's documents are likely to have the president - and Jones - turning red.

In one deposition, Dennis Kirkland, who claimed he had sex with Jones in his car just hours after they met, was asked about nude photos of her that appeared in Penthouse magazine.

She was kind of promiscuous, claimed Kirkland, who said he left a party with Jones with the understanding that she would perform oral sex on him and she unzipped my pants ... if you want to be blunt.

The documents also include Jones' description of Clinton's distinguishing characteristic.

^His penis_ was ... crooked and gross. You know. That was the word she used, Jones' sister Lydia Cathey said in a deposition.

Cathey also testified Jones described how Clinton was supposedly touching himself as her sister watched - although in the next breath she admitted she didn't know how or when he became aroused.

In her 1994 lawsuit, Jones claimed Clinton, while governor of Arkansas, exposed himself to her in 1991 at a Little Rock hotel room and asked her for oral sex.

In other revelations:

Jones' ex-lawyer, Joe Cammarata, said he believed it was former White House volunteer Kathleen Willey who tipped him off to the 1993 incident in which Clinton reportedly groped her near the Oval Office.

Cammarata, in an affidavit, said the woman who called refused to give her name but said: I had a similar thing happen.

He said the caller admitted she was both frightened and excited and that she reciprocated his kisses.

According to his account, she said Clinton kept members of his Cabinet waiting while he groped her and that she saw three of them as she left the office - raising the possibility of three more witnesses.

Jones lawyers tried to force the Secret Service to spill dirt on Clinton, but were blocked by the Justice Department. Later, Starr sought to squeeze the agents for his probe - and got permission from the courts. White House spokesman Joe Lockhart said yesterday he was not aware of any White House role in blocking the Jones effort.

Lewinsky's lawyers, concerned that their client initially lied when she denied an affair with Clinton, tried to keep her out of the case so she wouldn't have to take the Fifth Amendment protecting herself against self-incrimination.

TPDL 1999-Jan-8, from the Associated Press:

Starr grand jury indicts friend who undermined Willey allegations

WASHINGTON (AP) - Julie Hiatt Steele, the friend whose testimony undermined Kathleen Willey's claim that President Clinton made an unwanted sexual advance, has been indicted on charges of lying and obstructing justice.

Ms. Steele was charged Thursday with three counts of obstruction of justice and one count of false statements by a grand jury in Alexandria, Va., working with Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr.

Among other things, the indictment accused Ms. Steele of filing a false affidavit in Paula Jones' sexual harassment suit against Clinton, lying to two grand juries and attempting to influence the testimony of other witnesses.

``I'm just shocked,'' Ms. Steele was quoted as saying in today's editions of the Richmond Times-Dispatch. ``I can't believe it's all come to this.''

Reached at home today, Mrs. Willey said, ``I regret that she brought this upon herself.''

Nancy Luque, a lawyer for Ms. Steele, called the indictment reckless and said it ``is a glaring example of Mr. Starr's gross abuse of his prosecutorial power.''

``Mr. Starr has clearly timed this baseless accusation in a transparent attempt to unfairly influence the pending impeachment proceeding,'' Luque said in a statement.

Luque said she began receiving phone calls from reporters three days ago indicating that Ms. Steele was to be indicted and accused Starr of ``unlawfully leaking confidential grand jury information to the media.''

The president's lawyers had used Ms. Steele's testimony in an effort to cast doubt on the credibility of Mrs. Willey, a former White House volunteer who alleges Clinton made an unwanted sexual advance toward her in the Oval Office in 1993.

Clinton denies Mrs. Willey's accusation, which became a focus of Mrs. Jones' sexual harassment lawsuit. In his testimony in the Jones lawsuit, the president said Mrs. Willey ``was not telling the truth'' and that her credibility had been ``pretty well shattered.''

The indictment notes that a lawyer for Clinton approached Ms. Steele in January 1998 to get her to file the affidavit and that she initially refused, then changed her mind. Ms. Steele eventually filed an affidavit in the Jones lawsuit alleging that Mrs. Willey never told her about the alleged advance as she had claimed.

But Starr alleged Thursday that the affidavit and Ms. Steele's subsequent testimony before two federal grand juries were false.

Ms. Steele ``well knew and believed'' Mrs. Willey had told her about the alleged sexual advance shortly after it happened and ``even related information about Mrs. Willey's account of the incident to several of defendant Steele's friends'' as early as 1993, the indictment charged.

Prosecutors also contend that Ms. Steele lied to FBI agents working for Starr and ``attempted in the Eastern District of Virginia to influence the testimony of one or more witnesses in the grand jury investigation.''

The indictment charges that Ms. Steele ``repeatedly attempted'' to convince two friends that she had not told them about the Willey incident. At the time, one of the friends was being sought by FBI agents for questioning.

Mrs. Willey's nationally televised accusations of an unwanted sexual advance eventually became part of Starr's investigation into Clinton's affair with White House intern Monica Lewinsky and allegations that the Jones lawsuit was obstructed by supporters of the president.

Ms. Steele and Mrs. Willey testified before the grand jury in Washington that Starr used during the Lewinsky investigation. Starr's office then used a separate grand jury in the northern Virginia suburbs of Washington to further investigate Ms. Steele and other allegations that Mrs. Willey may have been threatened and intimidated by unknown persons after her story became public.

Each obstruction charge carries a maximum penalty of 10 years in prison and $250,000 in fines. The false statement charge carries a maximum penalty of five years in prison and $250,000 in fines.

Ms. Steele came to public attention when she was quoted in a Newsweek article in August 1997 that first brought Mrs. Willey's allegation to light. Ms. Steele contended she lied to the Newsweek reporter at Mrs. Willey's request, and told the reporter that Mrs. Willey had confided to her about the alleged episode with Clinton. She later told the reporter she had lied. The magazine noted the allegation and the switch in the same story.

from TPDL 1998-Nov-6, from the Wall Street Journal:

'A Clear Constitutional Duty'

With the future of the impeachment inquiry on everyone's mind, Congressman Henry Hyde of Chicago, the Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, spoke plainly the day after the election. "The committee continues to have a clear Constitutional duty to complete its work in a fair and expeditious manner. Our duty has not changed, because the Constitution has not changed."

Pay heed to Henry Hyde.

Mr. Hyde, unlike too many in and around the national government, understands beyond Tuesday's returns the larger significance for our government of the matters pertaining to the Clinton Presidency. Does any serious person in Washington really believe that this problem is just about Mr. Clinton's puerile personality? The President's childishness is the case for the defense, the false spin. The grown-up reality is that if the Members of Congress, sulking in loss, decide now to simply "move on," they will leave in place for the future a dishonored and diminished Executive branch. And every one of them knows it.

That said, we do not underestimate the difficulty of the task. Impeachments are rare, with no paved road to follow, only the hacked path of two precedents and much legal theory. And surely the path of duty is no easier in the wake of Tuesday's election.

The election results reflect the biggest boulder before the Hyde committee, the popular belief that the problem with the Clinton Presidency is "just about Monica." It is not, but the debate so far has been shaped by a crucial decision by the Independent Counsel's office in late summer. At the time Mr. Starr and his colleagues were debating the scope of his referral, these columns advised him to bring a broad case. When he brought a narrow one we withheld judgment, because it was a truly close decision. Now, however, the aftermath of his "just Monica" referral has worked out as we warned.

The decision then was between a rifle-shot referral, with one narrow charge that meets the standard of proof beyond a reasonable doubt, and a broad charge showing a pattern of obstruction, though with less iron-clad proof of direct Presidential involvement. The danger of the narrow count, especially since it involved sexual behavior, was that it would not seem of sufficient weight to call for a President's removal. The perceived weakness of a broad-pattern count is that it would bog down, with the Clinton legal apparatus ensuring that the debate focused on whatever charges seemed weakest. While we can't be sure how the second course would have played out, in retrospect it seems the better decision.

Especially so since the heart of the matter is in fact the pattern rather than sexual misbehavior. Even without a broad report of Mr. Starr's findings, the public record as established over two terms by hearings and courageous reporting has produced a broad pattern of first, abuse, and then obstruction of legitimate attempts to account for each abuse.

That record includes the Travel Office firings, the abuse of raw FBI files, the refusal of the White House general counsel to give Justice Department lawyers access to Vincent Foster's office; the removal of documents from that office; the suppression of an RTC investigation into Whitewater/Castle Grande, the routine abuse of legitimate subpoena requests, the destructive precedent of high Executive branch appointees blandly using "failed memory" defenses before Congressional committees; the payments for apparently fictitious legal work to former assistant attorney general and convicted felon Webster Hubbell; the history of threats against Kathleen Willey and other Clinton women; the routine use by a President of private investigative firms as a political tool; the Senate Whitewater committee's reported evidence of a "pattern of obstruction"; the Thompson Committee campaign corruption findings; the incredible shrinking of executive privilege in feckless court appeals.

But let us all "move on." Move on beyond turning the White House intern program into a pickup bar, asking the President's personal secretary to procure, implicating the Secret Service in procuring, allowing the Secretary of State to make false statements to the American people, turning the Lincoln Bedroom into a playpen, making the Attorney General an object of ridicule, and making the Department of Justice a topic of embarrassment throughout the legal community. What normal person wouldn't want to move on?

But first, whether or not there are votes for impeachment, whether the Democrats in Congress choose to cast themselves in history as complicit during these years, we still need to make a record. The Clinton scandal precedents pose a genuine danger to future politics. Without a completed accounting, we are leaving an awful legacy of acceptably low conduct to the successors of this President, his Cabinet, the government's legal community, and the Congress.

So let Mr. Hyde do his duty. Lay out the record. Let Kenneth Starr bring any remaining indictments and get the rest of the Clinton pattern onto the table. Mr. Starr should understand that his ultimate report, absent any broader context, could easily become a defense of the Clinton crowd, explaining why their conduct was not quite indictable. And Chairman Hyde should let Janet Reno explain one more time for this record why she kicked any relevant information about campaign finance violations probes past the election.

We have historically argued that Presidents do need room to govern. In whatever other respect Mr. Clinton may have failed, he has surely proved the office a powerful one, able for example to stonewall away conduct that would not be tolerated in any other position of authority in this society. At this moment, the problem is not energy in the Executive. The problem is energy in the Republicans, who bear some larger responsibility to the nation. As for history, if Bill Clinton's assorted scandals are now simply swept under the rug, the mystery to be explained will be: Precisely why, after his 1972 landslide election, was Richard Nixon forced into resignation?