Filed by Dave "Doctor" Gonzo
for the Editors of American Politics Journal
MONDAY JANUARY 26ND 1998 --- New York (APJP) -- With a massive, orchestrated smear of President Clinton under way, Washington's spin doctors were in high gear for what turned out to be a Super Pundit Sunday. Most of the shows yammered on about the intern, the sex (usually underplaying the fact that these are allegations) and the potential impact on the President, while touching very little on the real story —that the entire situation is being driven by leaks, not hard news, and looks more and more to be an attempt to damage the Presidency.
Note: All dialogue condensed unless "in quotes" and our comments (in parentheses).
Evans & Novak
Punditry's conservative grumpy old men, Rollie Evans and Bob Novak, were as crotchety as usual, though they did seem to be a hair more animated than usual about the latest allegations against the President. The jeezers got right down to business on the allegations involving Monica Lewinsky. Rollie and Bob were intoning the word "scandal" with glee, relishing the opportunity to do what they like to most these days: bash Clinton (though I suspect Rollie likes schmoozing Donald Trump even more).
Their guest: Congressman Charles Rangel (D-NY), in Cuba with Castro, the Pope and no doubt some fine cigars. Rangel, wearing a suit, looked relaxed with Havana in the background — but was predictably fast on his feet.
Rangel continually emphasized the fact that the current press revelations are in fact allegations, but did make the point early on that he hopes that "it's not what his lawyers are telling Clinton" that should guide his decisions.
He derided Bob's proposal that the President should "go before the people" prior to the State of the Union. Right, Bob, and just make himself look as if he's guilty of something. He swatted off Bob's comment that the President "has not been very forward and very candid" by pointing out that the press is dealing with rumors, adding a well-deserved shot at (allegedly) Independent Counsel Ken Starr, saying that "[he] hasn't got the courage to come forward and blast all the people that are doing all of this leaking, he's running around threatening people!" He would later light into "leaks that have generated by Ken Starr… we should give equal time to find out who did the leaking. Did it come out of Ken Starr's office?" We wouldn't be surprised, Charlie.
Rangel actually escalated the stakes on a question from Rollie about whether the Democratic party should rally around Clinton by invoking the "i" word: "[some in the GOP] have talked about impeachment but for the most part my colleagues in the House have said let the man do his job." Gutsy move, Charlie. He then went into a barrage of issues he thought would contrast Democrats and Republicans that the President will outline. He also cautioned Republicans in no uncertain terms that "it is just not fair to allow someone to turn slowly in the wind based solely on unfounded allegations." Many of them have kept their heads pretty low since Wednesday, Charlie… you don't think they're getting nervous about having something to hide, do you?
Novak lit into the Cabinet holding a press conference to "show support" for the President and Rangel spun it right back in his face by explaining that the Cabinet "the Cabinet members said they were here to show that the allegations against the President are not interfering with our work, so we interrupted our work to come out and tell you." Novak let out one of his evil mad scientist laughs. Even we grinned at this one.
Rollie claimed that "the United States of America is being laughed at all over the world today… [and] in Baghdad" trying to push the subject matter to Saddam. Funny that Rollie didn't make the connection between Starr's office and the laughter. Rangel pointed out that America holds its President to "much higher and unfamiliar standards" than most foreign countries. Bob's speculation that we may up the ante with Saddam was slapped down by Rangel, who found the idea of escalating against Iraq frankly ridiculous.
Gist of the Cuba junket —
Rollie: Did you ask Castro to release political prisoners?
Rangel: Met with Castro for 5 hours, worked to establish better dialogue & eventual normalization of relationships.
Rollie: Free elections?
Rangel: Explained to Castro that Americans don't understand one party system; Castor's response — "You get 98% of the vote and see what you think of the one party system!"
Bob: The crowds for the Pope were bigger than expected despite 40 years of Communist atheism.
Rangel: The Pope is a dynamic and exciting figure, non-Catholics are as excited about The Pope. Pictures and posters of a gunless Castro holding The Pope's hand — this is changing Castro's image internationally.
Rollie: The Pope decried the US embargo on Cuba; will it have an effect?
Rangel: Not on the President, but it will allow Clinton to establish a better dialogue with Cuba.
After the break, Bob asked Rangel if Clinton should resign: "Of course not, and I'm surprised that you raised even that question. (We're not!) We're talking about accusations, unfair leaks and no ample opportunity for you and me and other Americans to find out what the facts are."
Rollie asked about Panetta's comment that Clinton could be "facing im-PEACH-ment," intoning the words with the grave declamation of a true elder pundit. Rangel: "If there was no question that the President was involved with obstruction of justice… you bet your life. But since what we're dealing with are leaks, i don't think it justifies this discussion."
The wrap-up: Rollie reemphasized Rangel's "YOU BET YOUR LIFE" in the wrap-up (saying it Rollie style); Bob on Rangel: "he had the guts to make some prudent and provocative comments about this scandal. Very interesting." Not especially, Bob. All he did was make you look your usual bombastic partisan self.
Next week should be conservative hog heaven: Senator Goober Helms will be their guest. We'll be sure
to miss it.
Reliable Sources
Even though it's a pressfest and not a political show, we decided to give Reliable Sources a looksee, and it paid off in spades this week — but not because the first five minutes, nothing more than a plug by Clinton bane Wolf Blitzer for tomorrow morning's CNN Late Edition disguised as another "exclusive" ("CNN has learned Clinton advisors believe he did have a relationship and are discussing among themselves the possibility of resignation").
A brief wrap-up of the show:
Bernard Kalb led with the theme of the program: "Has the media gone nuts?" (Is the Pope Catholic?) The panel included Annenberg School Dean Kathleen Hall Jamieson, AP White House correspondent Helen Thomas, CNN's Frank Sesno, James Warren of the Chicago Sun-Times, and Howard Kurtz of the Washington Post. Sesno started the segment stating that "We [CNN] are absolutely convinced we are on solid ground." Jamieson took a less sanguine view of the current media situation: "Not only is the media rushing in [at every opportunity]… there is a presumption of innocence." This set up the most interesting face-off of the segment, Sesno defending the broadcast media, Jamieson castigating the media for "allegations trafficked as fact." In the case of coverage of the entire Vernon Jordan angle, "there was no coverage of the conflict between [the Tripp] tapes and Vernon Jordan's categorical denial." Bernard Kalb brought up another crucial angle not addressed by the media: "we're not seeing the agenda of leakers from either side addressed." Discussion shifted to whether cameras and microphones create rather than report news; while Howard Kurtz pointed out that "some people feel we're going overboard, but the political stakes are huge." Sesno declared the current story "the first real-time live domestic crisis." James Warren felt "we've been high-minded in our coverage" but Jamieson dissented, arguing that there was too much coverage of the sex when "the real question is suborning perjury."
The program's major coup was a one-on-one with Matt Drudge, preceded by a video backgrounder. He looks sort of like a grown-up version of Butt-head (of "Beavis and" fame) in an ill-fitting suit. His unctious, smug expression and head cocked to the right (how appropriate) gave him the appearance of a small-time operator quite full of himself — which is exactly the same impression we get from his writing. An excerpt —
Kalb: You've been right, you've been wrong. Do you take yourself very seriously in journalistic terms?
Drudge: On this story I have, yeah, a story of this magnitude and the scoops I've had all week long, that aren't just the Newsweek scoops, other scoops with this story I have to take myself seriously, we're talking about a presidency is un, unraveling.
Kurtz: But the original scoop which was about the Newsweek story that didn't get published — why would someone at Newsweek let you know about a story of that magnitude?
Drudge: They came from concerned citizens, who were very concerned, I first heard about…
Kalb: Concerned citizens at Newsweek?
Drudge: Concerned citizens.
Who, Drudge? Linda Tripp? Lucy Goldberg?
Drudge speaks like a sort of journalistic David Helfgott — every other word out of his mouth is either "scoop" or some piece of hard-rightspeak like "a presidency that is un, unraveling" or "concerned citizens." The entire spectacle of Kalb acting as if he was taking Drudge seriously was both funny and disturbing.
Drudge was dodgy about his fact-checking and whined about "watching Wolf Blitzer reiterate my copy without giving me credit." Hey, Drudge, you just recycle rumors and wire copy, and kudos to Wolf for not embarrassing himself the way Donaldson does for using your dilettante name!
A short piece by Jed Duvall followed on "the global bounce": how the world is taking this story (not too seriously, and it makes Americans and the American press look silly for taking a sex scandal so seriously). Talk radio hosts Gil Gross and Ron Owens spoke about the story being perfect fodder for talk radio (and by implication gossip and not serious news).
The final "Back Page" section was titled "IF," and featured television coverage from anchors and correspondents alike — a reminder that this story is indeed based on allegations, leaks and rumors, and perhaps the media has gone nuts.
While "Reliable Sources" is a press rather than a political punditfest, we're glad we caught it this week. We'll be checking this program out more often in the future as circumstances merit.
And CNN: You should put Bernard Kalb on the political beat. He's a gem!
Fox News Sunday
The hot young turks of weekend punditry broke format, including two reports at the top of the show and concentrating on four days of allegations and spin about the President. "Has Bill Clinton been convicted in the court of public opinion?" Tony Snow began the broadcast sounding like the cat with the proverbial canary as he offered to take loyal Fox News Sunday viewers "to the School for Scandal." Tony savors that "S" word — he was feeling his oats this week.
Jim Angle reported from the White House that Clinton's staff is working to contain political damage; Mickey Kantor is in, Hillary is a central figure in discussions and that Clinton staffers have "begun a whispering campaign" about an "obsessed" Monica Lewinsky. David Schuster, emphasizing the prosecutorial angle of the story, reported from outside Ken Starr's offices that Starr, still in negotiations with Monica Lewinsky's attorney William Ginsburg, has enough evidence to indict and convict ???, both sides have leverage and that "it's a chess match" between the lawyers.
Tony's first guest: White House Communications Director Ann Lewis.
Tony took an assertive tone, and Ann Lewis showed real toughness. The gist —
Tony: Was Monica Lewinsky obsessed with Bill Clinton?
Ann: I have absolutely no info; YOU said regardless of the facts, this situation is spinning out of control.
Tony: There's been speculation that oral sex is arguably not adultery; what has President Clinton told you?
Ann: "I am not an investigator, I am not a counsel… I think Washington has enough investigators."
Tony: When will we hear from President Clinton?
Ann: "Why don't you tell me what you mean. I'm tired of people talking in code words!" (Cut the press some slack, Ann… they're not bilingual, they only speak in code.)
Tony: "Oh my!" When will President Clinton characterize his relationship with Monica Lewinsky?
Ann: "President Clinton will cooperate with the Independent Counsel."
Tony: "What you're saying to me is he cannot talk with the public until he's gone through a legal process with Ken Starr." (Tell me, Tony — if you were in his position, would you go public? Didn't think so…)
Ann: "What I'm saying to you is that so long as you have that Independent Counsel investigation out there, our first obligation is to cooperate with this investigation. But Tony let's be honest here, can we just for a moment be candid?"
Tony: "I'm trying!"
Ann: "You also know that among the individuals in this case are a number of the President's political opponents. You introduced a couple of them according to the news stories. Aren't you the person who introduced two of those people?"
Tony: "I knew you were gonna say that. Y'know what I did? I gave a phone number to Lucy Ann Goldberg four years ago. Now if that means I'm part of a plot that unfolded four years later…" (This was the pundit volley of the week — and this very sequence of dialogue ended up on ABC World News Sunday. You're a newsmaker, Tony! Hint to ABC: I'd rather see an hour of Tony on your network every Sunday than a mere 20 seconds.)
Ann: "No, I was just asking. So you know that a number of the names we are seeing now are people who were connected in a political way." She went on to say that these people are fanning the flames — including Lucy Goldberg, who said she wanted to see Ken Starr "get Clinton" — and there's always a tension between getting it out early and getting it out right.
Tony: Today's Newsweek web edition carries the headline "Oral Sex in the Oval office."
Ann: "We're seeing rumors treated as facts." (Television has caught Drudge-itis!)
Tony: Was there an emotional relationship between Bill Clinton and Monica Lewinsky?
Ann: I never heard such a conversation.
Tony: Has anyone said "go after Monica Lewinsky?"
Ann: Not that I'm aware.
Tony: Has Dick Morris been in contact?
Ann: I can tell you that neither I nor anyone I work with has mentioned his name in a long time.
Tony then introduced former Presidential advisors David Gergen and Don Bayer; they were joined by Brit Hume and Mara Liasson.
Gergen: "All of us would like to believe the President is correct." If not "on Tuesday he should confess… he owes it to the country… he owes it to this young woman."
Brit: What would you do if the President called?
Gergen: "Just what I said… the Presidency is at stake."
Mara: Do you think the State of the Union Address is the proper forum for this matter?
Don: "No… I think what the President said is true… it would be ridiculous."
There was a big square-off between Gergen and Don about the State of the Union Address — Gergen continued to imply it would be a good time for him to come forward. (We'd prefer to hear about real issues than this out-of-control distraction, Dave.)
Brit: "The President has admitted some kind of relationship — this is not fundraising, this is about a relationship — why won't he tell us?"
Don: "The President should have a public conversation… I agree with David that this is a serious story [but]
Ken Starr should [also] be on the table. This has gone from a prosecution to a persecution."
Mara: Bowles told White House staff not to attack Starr.
Don: Good advice. Many people are worried about the pace at which the story is emerging.
Gergen: Had Ken Starr succeeded in getting Monica Lewinsky wired, it would have backfired on him.
Mara: The fact that the President will not comment before the State of the Union Address damages him.
Don: "This is the first time that there has been a TV feeding frenzy." Compared to the past, "the news cycle is compressed." (Of course, part of the reason is that TV now has to compete with the Internet, from legitimate operations like CNN and Reuters to libeling rumormongers like Matt Drudge.) " I think it important that the President explains [policy and vision] on Tuesday."
Gergen: It will be hard for the President to lead.
Don: Agreed.
Tony: "When we get back, the Republican perspective." (Hey, Tony, Fox News Sunday is getting redundant — Brit and Gergen just gave it to us!)
Senator John Ashcroft was the guest for the following segment with Tony and Juan Williams. The gist —
Ashcroft: "I believe the American people need a leader, not a lawyer." (Stop the leaks and you'll have your wish!)
Tony: Isn't this provocative hearsay?
Ashcroft: It's wrong "to suggest that there are no facts… there's a values vacuum." (If you take as gospel rumors and accusations.)
Juan: The President has denied it.
Ashcroft: "He did not say there was no relationship… this President specializes in telling the people what is false… The President cannot plead the Fifth Amendment to the American people." (Listen to Ken Starr, John: wasn't he saying something about presumption of innocence?)
Juan: Are you "smugly content to see the President in this problem, and really adding fuel to the fire" and failing to make grandiose statements when he states that the allegations are false? (As if we can't tell from his answers.)
Ashcroft: If there are adventurous Third World people — Saddam Hussein, specifically — they'd better think again, but "the President should tell the truth."
Tony: Reports that we are close to war with Iraq.
Ashcroft: "We are certainly impaired as a result of a values deficit." (Cut the cow pies, John — you can't tie military preparedness the the President's "values" unless you're trying to encourage sedition.)
Tony: Is the President so weak that we can't get support of our gulf allies?
Ashcroft: I can't assess this situation.
Tony: Does he have the political clout to get his will?
Ashcroft: "Our agenda should be to help American families," address the "values deficit," fight for flex time.
Juan: Why doesn't the Senate Judiciary Committee hold hearings? (A clear "I dare you.")
Ashcroft: "The Senate has no authority in that respect." If the allegations prove true, "he should just resign… if the President of any corporation took a 21-year-old and had an affair…" cut off by Juan. (Forget it John… most people don't care. I worked for a major corporation where the sexcapades of the top-ranking officers were the frequent subject of amusing gossip — and none of them got canned because the company was making plenty of money, paying stockholders handsome dividends, and brilliantly managed overall. The employees and stockholders didn't care… and frankly it was none of their business anyway.)
Tony: Nobody knows the facts. Should the GOP lay off impeachment talk?
Ashcroft: It depends on how it's mentioned - if someone asks about it, Henry Hyde should be able to explain it.
(In other words, no — it effectively further damages the Pres.)
"Is scandal drowning out the issues?" (Is the Pope Catholic?) Bill Archer went one-on-one with Tony.
Tony: Has the Monica Lewinsky affair weakened the President as a policymaker?
Archer: We will pursue ways & means agenda ourselves, especially tax relief; I strongly support abolition of the tax code and dismantling the IRS, and will pursue these goals.
Tony: How much money do I get back next year? What'll you do for me this year?
Archer: Don't withhold as much. People are paying attention to it, and the GOP must pursue a "main line" issue track, hopefully.
Tony: Why do people feel Bill Clinton is better with the economy.
Archer: They feel we're better with taxes. (We don't.) Democrats "support higher taxes and spending."
(Yeah - higher taxes on those who should pay their fair share, and basic, decent programs like Medicare that help people that need it. People see through these generalizations.) "It's a moral and social issue — families need more money."
Tony: Reports that 20-25 in Congress support impeachment. (…namely, the "Twilight Zone" wing of the GOP.)
"Media Feeding Frenzy!" The roundtable of Brit, Tony, Mara and Juan was preceded by Fox News Poll figures - at odds with similar CNN poll figures: Clinton's approval rating at 49% (down from 59% last week), and a 56% yes to 26% no response to "Did Bill Clinton ask Monica Lewinsky to lie?" Mention was made of CNN's report that "members of the Clinton Administration were urging him to resign." Not quite, Tony… of course, given the craziness of putting together the show it's no surprise you weren't watching CNN.
Juan: Media coverage has been irresponsible.
Mara: You keep thinking "I have to check this out."
Brit: Clarified the CNN report (did not say administration staffers were suggesting resignation to Clinton). "It sounds more sensational than it really is… [it raised] a stiff White House denial." The heart of Bill Clinton's political problem is his denial of an "improper relationship" and failure to characterize what went on.
Juan: "We're dealing with a delusional woman, girlie gossip… The President runs the risk of pushing Monica Lewinsky to Starr."
Mara: Monica Lewinsky's friends "are quite agnostic" about what she is reputed to have said on tape.
Brit: No matter, there was some kind of relationship.
Juan: Bill Clinton does have to say Monica Lewinsky is delusional.
They showed the video clip of Clinton with Monica Lewinsky on the receiving line after the second inauguration.
Brit: Not too much should be made of this tape, but Bill Clinton doesn't have to attack Monica Lewinsky.
Juan: "This is not him against her — this is Ken Starr in the middle."
Tony whipped out the Spinterpreter and used it on the following statement by Ken Starr:
Ken: We used appropriate investigative techniques that are
Spinterpreter: LET ME ASSURE YOU
traditional law enforcement techniques.
WE DID NOTHING IMPROPER
We conduct this investigation the
THE LAW PERMITS US
way any other investigation would be conducted.
TO SQUEEZE HER LIKE A LEMON.
Brit: I think that puts the finger on Ken Starr going too far beyond his original mandate.
Juan: Wasn't Ken Starr the same guy who was going around Arkansas asking women about their relations with BC?
Mara: Starr investigated Vernon Jordan once before, in regard to Web Hubbell— "I'm getting calls from people around the country and even overseas saying 'who cares?'… is this really an important issue?"
Juan: "Amen!"
Brit: I think Bill Clinton will survive — the question is will he survive undamaged?
Tony: Newsweek held off on the Monica Lewinsky story last Sunday; they'd been working on it for a year.
Mara: Ken Starr asked Newsweek to hold off.
Juan: The Newsweek dilemma — "You've got to get the story [correctly], but you've got to get it out there." Nonetheless "some of it ain't your and my business." (It's about time someone pointed this out!)
Mara: The public thinks it's about sex — in DC we feel it's about cover-up and perjury.
Brit: A lot of people will care.
Juan: Reminiscent of Anita Hill — this is an electronic lynching.
Brit wrapped up with the stories we missed: The Iraq standoff, Pope John Paul II in Cuba, Bibi and Yassir's trip to DC, Microsoft's settlement with Justice, Kaczynski's guilty plea as UniBomber, the beginning of hearings into Interior Secretary Bruce Babbitt [and testimony this week that undermines accusations against Babbitt], the 25th anniversary of Roe v. Wade [Dan Quayle still thinks those are the two best ways to cross the Potomac] and some sporting event later today, yawn.
His parting shot: we're nearing "the end of Clinton speculation… dig, find facts, report, let history take its course." The editors of American Politics feel that that's the problem — the press digs, hits leaks, reports them as facts, and messes with the course of history.
No matter — even if we disagree with much of their political viewpoint, Roger Ailes, Tony Snow and his posse never fail to put on a high-calibre thought-provoker. And this week was another slam-dunk for the team.
The McLaughlin Group
The McLaughIn group stuck pretty much to the usual formula, with John intoning the issues in his trademark imperious baritone.
Issue One: Dangerous Liaisons! Now, John, you're not implying a prelude to the French Revolution here, are you? The opening backgrounder contained background on Bill Clinton, Monica Lewinsky and Linda Trip (Bob Bennett called her "a liar" on another matter), and a clip from the Clinton-Flowers tape with comments on an "admission" by Clinton of an affair with Flowers.
Three usual suspects joined John this week: Pat Buchanan, Eleanor Clift, and Morton Kondracke, plus Richard Lambert from London's Financial Times.
John: What will Monica Lewinsky do, especially if Ken Starr offers her "protection"… read: immunity?
Pat: She's only in trouble if she lied in her deposition — perjury under oath.
John: That deviates from where I was leading — ironclad, total immunity for Lewinsky.
Eleanor: Lewinsky is embroiled in a criminal investigation; Ken Starr will play hardball, her attorney William Ginsburg has complained about Ken Starr "squeezing." (Ginsburg would later distance himself from this statement on CNN Late Edition).
Richard: The issue is whether the President told the truth.
Mort: This is the biggest threat to the Presidency since Watergate — "We're talking impeachment here!" (So early with the "I" word!)
Eleanor: No way this holds up in court —Monica Lewinsky was taped illegally, it's all hearsay anyway, Ken Starr is using tapes to drive public opinion. (We're still a bit baffled about why the press is ignoring serious problems with the taped evidence — problems which might have led a lesser prosecutor to be disciplined or dismissed)
John: It's all a sideshow to the main issue.
A tape of Kondracke speaking with Clinton on the phone — denying an "improper relationship" — was played.
Mort: He said 'I know what you mean.'
John: Is he saying oral sex is not a sexual relationship.
Mort: Bill Clinton knows he's in deep trouble. "What he said was so lawyerly and so unrobust."
Pat: Monica Lewinsky will have immunity — Ken Starr will go to either the President or the Senate Judiciary Committee.
Richard: The President is innocent.
Mort: I'm concerned the President did not flatly deny this.
John: Pat's right, "there was sex."
Issue Two: Presidency in Peril! Backgrounder on one possible "Presidential Strategy" — Deny Everything (President, Vernon Jordan), Kill the Messengers (Monica Lewinsky, Linda Tripp, Paula Jones, Ken Starr) — Would it work?
Mort: No, but then, we don't know exactly what they will do.
Richard: The foreign press is not taking this scandal too seriously; it will not have a drastic effect on the Dow Jones.
John: Is the "moral authority" of the President affected internationally?
Richard: there will be no drama, even if the President is impeached.
Eleanor: Will we see Wag the Dog realized?
Mort: Saddam should be very careful.
John: Wag the Dog could be used to knock the "scandal" off the front page.
Pat: A problem with the Kill the Messenger strategy applied to Monica Lewinsky: her job references by Vernon Jordan.
Eleanor: There will be no impeachment on perjury over an issue of sex.
Second backgrounder on another "strategy" — Come Clean, Admit Personal Guilt.
John: The House would not approve impeachment — they don't want Al Gore as President.
Mort: It would be handled politically, diplomatically: Democrat leaders would ask Clinton to resign.
Pat: They will leave him twisting in the wind.
John: He will be indicted if he resigns.
Both scenarios strike us as oversimplified and biased for a number of reasons — they implicitly assume some culpability on the President's part, and they fail to take into account all of the factors which have affected the present situation. Additionally, any number of other facts or factors could emerge to completely change the situation.
The poll: How will he leave office?
Pat: Finishes under a cloud or resigns.
Eleanor: He's out only if Ken Starr gets him on obstruction of justice.
Richard: He'll serve out his term.
Mort: Better than 50/50 that he resigns.
John: Better than 50/50 that he resigns.
Predictions!
Pat: Frank Carter, Monica Lewinsky's first attorney, will emerge as the next name in the scandal.
Eleanor: Sonny Bono's seat on the House Judiciary Committee "will be filled by a woman in anticipation of hearings on the President's conduct".
Richard: "Northern Ireland talks going off the rails — pray for peace." Quite a surprised reaction from John on this one.
Mort: "Destined for stardom — Henry Hyde."
John: "Frank Carter goes before a Grand Jury… Bye-bye!"
Without predicting trouble for Linda Tripp? We're disappointed, guys!
This Week with Sam and Cokie
Pretty good guests this week, but first ABC dished up another leak — er, breaking nugget of news from Jackie Judd at the White House: "several sources say" the President and Monica Lewinsky were caught in intimate acts in the White House. Judd said "this undercuts the President's denials" and underscores how Ken Starr is gathering evidence.
First up: Paul Begala, who staunchly defended Clinton, toeing the line for the official White House position on the issues. The gist —
Begala: Bill Clinton told the entire country the allegations are false; I cannot be a fact-finder; Ken Starr is "firing subpoenas as if he's an Uzi." (Nice one, Paul)
Sam: No sex relationship?
Begala: He's said that to me. I believe it. That settles it. "This was created evidence."
Cokie: Is any physical relationship between a married man and non-married woman improper?
Begala: Clinton said no relationship (the first of a number of reiterations). "An investigation will bear this out… [If rumors continue] we are going to shut down the recovery, shut down the whole country… It's unwise. I said he had no improper relationship."
George Will: What are Monica Lewinsky's motives… a character flaw? (See my comments on Will in the next segment)
Begala: I won't engage in psychoanalysis, reckless speculation.
George: Have you asked the President about Gennifer Flowers?
Begala: What he said to me and in the deposition was not inconsistent.
George: You must not believe he had an affair with Flowers.
Begala: No. He said Flowers' allegations were false. (We feel Paul went a little easy on Flowers, whose disingenuous position included manipulated and doctored audiotapes of conversations with Bill Clinton). Everyone knew what that meant when they voted for him. Part of what motivates these attacks from the right is frustration at having lost the White House to Clinton.
George: White House logs?
Begala: We're answering subpoenas.
Sam: Did Ken Starr create evidence?
Begala: There is a campaign of leaks and lies against Bill Clinton — it's "not legal for people conducting a legal investigation to leak to the press." (Some suspect the White House has hard evidence of a leak trail from Starr's office)
Cokie: Why doesn't he come out and talk to the American people?
Begala: Because of the emerging criminal investigation.
Sam: Will he resign?
Begala: "NO!"
Senator Trent Lott was the guest in the following segment, choosing his wording carefully; George Will, showing his most obnoxious anal-retentive right wing tendencies, joined Sam and Cokie. The gist —
Sam: Should Clinton resign?
Lott: It's inappropriate to comment; my job is to work on the agenda.
Sam: In other words, when the opposition destructs, get out of the way?
Lott: If the allegations are false, Bill Clinton will be vindicated; if true, the facts will emerge in the Independent Counsel investigation; we're busy working on legislation and policy.
Cokie: The ABC News Poll shows people feel if the President had an affair, it is not a reason to resign. (In other words, obviously most people don't care and the press is wasting its time blowing rumors out of proportion to gain ratings share)
Lott: I don't think I should comment on this.
Cokie: Is the GOP thrilled that President is weakened?
Lott: I'm sad about this, about its impact on the Presidency; it diverts us from balancing the budget, tax reduction, helping kids.
Cokie: Is this distracting with regard to Iraq?
Lott: We should have been more aggressive regarding Iraq. It's a distraction. We must move decisively.
George: Is the implied moral turpitude clause grounds for Clinton's removal? (IMPLIED MORAL TURPITUDE CLAUSE? What are your motives for saying this, George… a character flaw? Or is Phyllis Schlafly writing your questions these days? Most people don't care, and you think we should impose an impertinent, unwritten minority mindset on the President?)
Lott: Yes.
George: If the President is guilty — is he fit to send our kids into Iraq? (Crikey, George, you're making Buchanan sound sane! WHAT DOES IT MATTER?)
Lott: It hurts if you lose this moral authority. (It hurts even more when right-wing loons conspire to undermine the integrity of the office of the Presidency by trumping up irrelevant Profumo-esque scandals)
George: You will deliver the GOP response to the State of the Union Address — how can you not address this issue?
Lott: We want to deal with the people's business — bureaucracy, the IRS. (We also want to avoid a wave of "bimbo disruptions" which could destroy dozens of Congressional careers because we failed to bring the right wing of the party to heel)
Sam: You've discussed State of the Union Address with Erskine Bowles.
Lott: I recommend that we go forward — we don't know what the facts are.
Cokie: Might something intervene?
Lott: Our conversation was brief — State of the Union Address, Iraq, I hope the President takes the proper action no matter what distractions arise.
William Ginsburg, lawyer for Monica Lewinsky, was the next guest.
Cokie: Jackie Judd's report of witnesses — does it make a difference re. immunity for Monica Lewinsky?
Ginsburg: On the one hand I'm upset, her testimony is no longer as impertinent if they have solid evidence.
Sam: is it true?
Ginsburg: Attorney client privilege.
George: Has Monica Lewinsky discussed "talking points" documents with you?
Ginsburg: Attorney client privilege; seen but not analyzed the documents.
George: About Clinton's statement on Lehrer: "I didn't ask anyone not to tell the truth." Did the President talk to your client?
Ginsburg: Attorney client privilege.
George: What about the clothes?
Ginsburg: The dress that might be the focus of Ken Starr may be important. This is a salacious subject.
George: Do you now have Starr under pressure?
Ginsburg: They are under no more pressure than I; we've all been cordial on the telephone.
Sam: There are reports that you are trying to limit areas that Ken Starr can question her.
Ginsburg: We're saying unequivocally that if she gets immunity and won't be prosecuted she will tell all.
Cokie: What about a lesser deal?
Ginsburg: We'd have to review it.
Sam: So no deal?
Ginsburg: I'm fully prepared to defend her. (Pay attention, Ken — you may not be able to afford a high-profile Susan MacDougal)
Sam: Are the tapes manufactured evidence?
Ginsburg: I haven't heard them; I don't believe they're manufactured.
George: Where do negotiations stand in so far as you can discuss proffering & deals.
Ginsburg: We're no further in a legal sense but have made an offer; we want to keep her out of jeopardy.
Sam: How's Monica Lewinsky handling the situation?
Ginsburg: Scared to death, worried about "scarlet letter of indictment." (The same term also came up on CNN Late Edition)
Cokie: Look at what happened to Susan MacDougal — Ken Starr plays rough.
Ginsburg: "I don't know what you mean."
Cokie: In jail.
Ginsburg: Monica Lewinsky is "a doe in the headlights of a major international scandal."
Sound bite of the week! It closed the segment.
The next segment featured Henry Hyde, sounding and looking more impressively like a genuine GOP leader than ever.
Sam (once again mentioned the Jackie Judd leak): Whaddya think?
Hyde: "…just another event… an allegation."
George brought up the big "i" word again.
Hyde: "I'd rather the pros do the investigating than the politicians… Chances of a circus are greater in a congressional hearing."
George: Asked about the mixed issues of Senate primacy, legal issues and politics in early stages of impeachment proceedings.
Hyde: We have to minimize politics; substantial Democratic support will be needed; he doubts there are enough Democratic votes for impeachment. Also, in reply to a question by Cokie on evidence, Hyde declined to comment since in the event of impeachment he may have to sit as judge.
Sam: There's something surreal about the coming State of the Union Address this year.
Hyde: "Surreal is a good word. The Democrat's reaction will be either exaggerated or restrained…"
(We'll spin the Democrat's response to one pole or the other depending on what's convenient) The GOP response will "hopefully be civil, restrained polite." (In other words, don't expect any standing ovations from the right of the aisle.)
Will: What about the "implicit moral turpitude clause?" (George, it sure takes a lot to make Sam and Cokie look like Murrow and Cronkite by comparison, and you've got what it takes)
Hyde: I'm all for imposing the moral turpitude clause, but "people vote the Dow Jones, not Paula Jones."
Cokie kicked off the round table segment with Sam, George, George "Mop Top" Stephanopoulos and Bill Kristol: Can the President survive?
Mop Top: Depends on the question "Is he telling the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? I hope he is."
Bill: The President cannot survive — "he's lying, and he's inducing people to lie."
Sam: Let's wait, it will come out. The entire show has been on the one topic — "I'm amazed at the speed at which this story is going." (Gimme a break, Sam, you use the Internet — you know that the television "news cycle" is a thing of the past!)
George Will: 6 years ago today Bill Clinton talked about Gennifer Flowers "essentially misleading the country…
His Presidency is dead, deader than Woodrow Wilson's was" when he suffered his stroke.
Mop Top: He does have to do something about it.
Cokie: If Bill Clinton can convince America that any physical relationship is OK, he'll be the only person on earth who could… but he's awfully good at convincing people. (That's not how it'll play out, Cokie — essentially, people don't care what the President does in his spare time)
Sam: What does President Gore do? He can't pardon Clinton.
Mop Top: George, you're way ahead of yourself.
Bill: Democrats will go to the President to tell him the current situation is unsupportable.
Mop Top: Jackie's report adds a new element; if it's true it's no longer his v. her word.
Sam: I'm now Clinton's defender — the logs and the facts are not proof — I'd want my lawyer to be ready.
Cokie: Attacking Ken Starr doesn't work — it's not the issue. (Half right, Cokie — he's one of many issues)
Mop Top: This White House works best when the worst information comes out first. The American people will give him one chance; he should do three things — an Oval Office address, a no-holds-barred press conference the next day, and an address to Congress the following day. (Make that four things, Steph — first, he'd have to fire Bob Bennett)
George Will: He's not telling the truth. He's guilty. (Okay, okay George, you hate the man, we get the idea)
Sam: What will President Gore do? (It was cute the first time, Sam)
Bill: Put forth legislation effectively.
George Will: We are in a military crisis — we have a Commander-in-Chief with no moral authority.
And ABC has a certain pundit whose lack of insight and hatemongering induce nausea. Enough already, George.
Meet the Press
"The Presidency in Crisis — Will the President Survive?"
Meet the Press led with the most dire assessment of the pundit shows, which set the depressive tone for the rest of the program: first, Bill Clinton News/Wall Street Journal poll numbers showing the President's approval numbers way down (40% yes, 42% no) from the previous week (57% yes, 28% no). Note that these numbers are at such drastic variance with those from CNN and Bill Clinton that one must question the methodology of all three polls — but they're all down 10 to 15%.
Then David Bloom spoke with Russert from the White House lawn about how badly the President "has been hurt": "The President's closest advisors acknowledge with each passing day that the country is losing faith in Mr. Clinton… this is no longer about damage control, it's about survival." Bloom's take: that the White House feels that solid evidence of perjury would force a resignation or impeachment. Russert asked about the White House attacking Monica Lewinsky as unstable; Bloom replied that they're ready but "they've got to hold their fire" because it could "drive her into Kenneth Starr's arms" and it could also harm Vernon Jordan.
First guest: Monica Lewinsky's attorney Ginsberg. The man gets around! The gist is somewhat similar to his appearance on This Week —
Tim: How are the discussions going?
Ginsburg: "The ball is still in the air. We are having cordial discussions" by telephone, with hopes of continuing later Sunday.
Tim: She says she did not have a relationship with Bill Clinton under oath, true?
Ginsburg: Attorney client privilege.
Tim: But what about the discussions with Linda Tripp about the affair? Why didn't she go to the grand jury?
Ginsburg: "We are frozen in place because we are in jeopardy…"
Tim: If Monica Lewinsky gets immunity, will she tell all?
Ginsburg: "We're dying to tell, but we are frozen in place…"
Tim: KS is concerned about witnesses including Web Hubbell and Susan MacDougal "goin' south" (not cooperating). Will Monica Lewinsky cooperate fully if she gets immunity?
Ginsburg: "Yes. Absolutely, unequivocally."
Tim: KS's people did a search of Monica Lewinsky's apartment Thursday — what did they find?
Ginsburg: It was a consensual search, originally scheduled for last Tuesday; they found exactly what they were looking for, jewelry, clothes.
Tim: Did they take a dress with DNA evidence?
Ginsburg: "That's a salacious comment." I assume she would have had a sullied dress cleaned. "I know of no such dress."
Tim: But they did take a dress?
Ginsburg: Some clothing, a computer, a book of poetry autographed by the President.
Tim: If no Starr deal is arranged, she's scheduled to testify on Tuesday. Are you prepared to postpone it out of respect for the State of the Union Address?
Ginsburg: Yes! If we must go forward with testimony, I'm sure it was done inadvertently.
Tim: The Washington Post says the White House is prepared to attack Monica Lewinsky if she testifies against the President.
Ginsburg: A viable defense, but foolish. "How could they have put her in a position of such trustworthiness and concern? How could they have helped her get jobs including with responsible companies?"
Tim: She was called impressive by Vernon Jordan.
Ginsburg: She is impressive.
Tim: She wants her story out?
Ginsburg: Yes.
Tim: Was Starr overzealous in his tactics & treatment of your client?
Ginsburg: "Judge Starr" (Ginsberg makes a point of calling him Judge Starr) "and his staff are excellent people. I have had cordial relations with them I have nothing but the highest praise for them." (Surprisingly assertive praise.) They've been hard on Monica Lewinsky because they have to.
Tim: Is Starr out to get Clinton?
Ginsburg: My job is to defend Monica Lewinsky, not to take political positions. "I don't ascribe motive to anyone."
Tim: Do you feel Bill Clinton is in trouble?
Ginsburg: Yes. "I'm consistent with the majority of the American public."
Tim: Newsweek reports Bill Clinton will be forced to admit an affair with Monica Lewinsky.
Ginsburg: Haven't read Newsweek yet; "I don't know what he'll be forced to admit, that'll be up to him."
Tim: He testified contrary to that in the Jones case.
Ginsburg: I don't know that; I'd have to categorize that as a leak.
Tim: Can the President survive?
Ginsburg: I don't know. "I'm not a political pundit."
Tim: Does it scare you that the fate of the country and President is in your and Monica
Lewinsky's hands?
Ginsburg: "In addition to the fact that I don't believe that the government of the United States is in Monica Lewinsky's hands or in my hands, short of that, you betcha it scares me that the country can be in this kind of crisis… it has to factor into my decisions. And I do respect the Presidency." (Congratulations, Ginsburg… Tim has turned you into a pundit.)
Tim: There's a chance that Monica Lewinsky could deny a sexual relationship with the Press?
Ginsburg: Attorney client privilege.
Tim: Do you have anything else to say?
Ginsburg: No, sir, we're available, open to talk [with Ken Starr].
Tim then went quickly to Arlen Specter, who said it was "important not to answer hypothetical questions" and immediately went on to discuss hypothetical impeachment and resignation thresholds. Tim asked Spector why the GOP has been quiet about the scandal. Spector's reply: "I think that we Republicans are concerned about what is happening to the country and we do not want to add any clash and clamor. (Of coming legal problems involving GOP fundraising? Or maybe a massive "bimbo disruption" which could impact on both sides of the aisle in Congress?) We realize that the President has very important business to do. I was very distressed to see when the President was with Arafat, the media asked him a question (actually, I think Spector is enjoying all this), and I was a little surprised that the President would answer the question (yet he envies the way Clinton can get out of a politically damaging situation). On Tuesday, there's going to be a big cloud hanging over the House chambers as we all gather there to hear the President."
And that was only half of his answer! Spector is frequently longwinded on the punditfests and today would be no exception — prior to Spector, Russert had achieved a pace that Tony Snow would envy with his opening piece and Ginsburg interview, and Arlen became the human brick wall into which the momentum slammed.
Scariest of all, Spector's sounds and looks a lot like Dick Nixon.
He continued blathering on about whether "a criminal defense" should hold up the country and the business of government, and an end to the media frenzy. He'd hit all of his salient spin points — and achieved the twin dubious distinctions of longest and most boring answer of Pundit Bowl '98.
Russert then introduced Clinton advisor and ally James Carville. Ol' Swampfungus is the uncontested pro-Clinton King of Spin — few pundits and pundettes can spin a single question in eighteen directions as effectively or quickly as Carville. Any appearance by Carville on a pundit show is Must-See TV, especially when a juicy "scandal" is brewing.
He did not disappoint. Rather than give you answers from specific questions, we've gathered his hottest soundbites du jour:
"We have to remember how we got here. This started out as a $40,000 land deal that lost money. And about $50,000,000 dollars and five years later, after nobody could find anything, we're wiring up people in hotels, feeding 'em whiskey trying to get them to talk and everything else. This is a scuzzy investigation, and I guarantee you that when the facts come out, people are going to be repulsed by this. Right now, we have an Independent Counsel engaged in a systematic leak of Grand Jury information. Everything is one side of the story. Let this come out. I can tell the American people there is a complete, other side to this story. In due course it will be told."
"Let me emphasize the President said there was no improper relationship between himself and this woman."
"This is nothing but Starr, who couldn't 'get' the President on anything else — whose investigation is falling apart — trying to go to the same thing he did before: some kind of sleazy sex business, and I think the country is going to be repulsed by this entire thing!"
On the rumored "attack Lewinsky" strategy: "I think I would know if it was gonna be some kind of strategy that was in place… I think the focus will be on the motives of the Independent Counsel."
"You're gonna see a lot of stuff. You're gonna see these leaks. You're gonna see a lot of people talkin'. You're gonna see a lot of discussion. And I think that the strategy is very good. In essence, it's the old rope-a-dope strategy… Let 'em throw their best punches."
"There's gonna be a war. The friends of the President are disgusted by these kind of tactics. And we're going to fight. And we're going to fight very hard to defend this President."
"A war between whom?"
"The friends of the President and the Independent Counsel. That's exactly who it's between."
"We're not dealin' with honorable people here."
The final free-for-all between Newsweek's Michael Isikoff and Stuart Taylor, The New York Times' William Safire and internet gossipmonger Matt Drudge.
Isikoff responded to a comment about the interaction between Monica Lewinsky and Bill Clinton on videotape as being more familiar than one would expect between the President and an intern by telling a similar anecdote about Lewinsky and a friend on the receiving line for the 1996 Christmas party and the friend's being "stunned the President instantly recognizes Lewinsky, hugs her, says 'Hello Monica.' " (So?) Extensive transcripts from the Lewinsky tapes are featured in this week's Newsweek (major plug).
Stuart Taylor keyed in on the words "improper" and "any other woman" in Bob Bennett's reply to Paula Jones' legal complaint. "What we're seeing here is a classic non-denial denial from Clinton."
The Drudge take on the scandal: "Shock and very much concern that there has been deception for years coming out of this White House. I mean this intern relationship didn't happen last week, it happened over the course of a year and a half. And I'm concerned also there's a press corps that wasn't monitoring this situation enough. Umm, Iiiii've been told if Mr. Clinton asks for the release of his deposition in the Paula Jones case ahh the gag order may be lifted uhhhwuh for the specific release of this. I think this is one stroke he could do immediately uh by uh asking the court in Little Rock to release his deposition and uhhyu again it's my understanding from sources down there that uh they would grant it the people would be uhhh get to see it. Stop hiding behind gag orders. Uh, this is the wrong time to do this when you have so much at stake."
Such an articulate job, Matt. Keep you day job. And I don't mean the one on the Internet.
William Safire reiterated his position from the Friday New York Times in which he said he believes the President! "But will it drive him from the White House? I don't know… Did he suborn perjury? It'll be a tough thing to prove." Safire would rather see Clinton impeached for alleged campaign finance wrongdoings anyway.
Tim asked Stuart Taylor if Clinton might amend his deposition in the Paula Jones case; Taylor sees it as a remote possibility. He also brought up the matter of an affidavit submitted by Monica Lewinsky in the Jones v. Clinton case which might be used to argue that Clinton suborned perjury.
Tim asked Isikoff about Carville's "this is war" comment; Isikoff was skeptical, having not heard Carville give a game plan, and seen that Clinton has not gone with his usual rapid response.
Drudge on Carville's war: "Well, I think we'll give him some war… This upcoming week is going to be one of the worst weeks in the country's history if they take the tack that this all made up and this is all Ken Starr." On Carville's argument that the charges of wrongdoing come from Clinton's enemies: "Mm-hmm, well, umm, this, this would, if, if, duh, again, if this is their tacks, to go after the accuser, to accuse the accuser, and to get in front of what's happening……" Hell, I give up.
Tim, your show is one of the best on television, but take our advice: don't ever let this inarticulate, sloppy, boorish, libelous joke of a pseudojournalist ever debase your show again. He can't even construct a coherent sentence half the time.
Safire on the Wag the Dog scenario, Iran and the return of Harry Thomasson to Washington: "I think when it comes down to putting American lives on the line, he will act like a patriot, he will do the right thing… Certainly Republicans are wise to shut up [on the current scandals]." On whether he resigns: "I think he'll gonna fight, in his words, until the last dog dies. And it could be that the last dog dies."
We were expecting some kind of face-off between Drudge and Isikoff over Drudge's leaking of part of a Newsweek story on Lewinsky early this week; sadly, no such confrontation occurred. It suprises me that Isikoff didn't take any swipes at Drudge at all. What's going on there?
There was a too-brief segment on what might have been the week's lead story: the Pope's visit to Cuba featuring comments by John Cardinal O'Connor and Bernard Cardinal Law. O'Connor spoke on the Pope "spreading hope", and Law on the Pope "calling people to have confidence in being themselves." O'Connor on the Pope legitimizing Castro: he and other American Catholic leaders "didn't feel in any way that he would grant any legitimacy." Law: "It's a meeting of two perspectives, two world views." O'Connor on the aftermath of the Pope's visit: "there's going to be a peaceful revolution take place." Law: "A pastoral visit and a visit to a whole society." No major surprises, but interesting in that both Law and O'Connor spoke with no small amount of awe about both Cuba and the Pope, and both have been mentioned as possible successors to Pope John Paul II.
The program ended on a somber note with mention of the death of NBC News legal analyst Jay Monahan. We'll miss him too.
© 1998, 1997, American Politics Journal Publications Inc.