Dave "Doctor" Gonzo's
DIS-patch Setting Up Sid?
Can you say... perjury trap? Tuesday, February 9, 1999 -- From the moment the news hit late last week that porcine Brit lefty Chris "Chinless Wonder" Hitchens and his wife Carol Blue had filed affidavits claiming that White House communications guru Sid Blumenthal had uttered the "S" word with (dis-)respect to that woman, Ms. Lewinsky, over lunch, The Doc smelled a set-up.And The Doc was not alone in these sentiments.Backtrack to the previous week and the decision by House managers that their three witnesses would be Blumenthal, Lewinsky and Vernon Jordan. It at first seemed odd that Blumenthal was a member of the witness Trifecta instead of Betty Currie, a witness far closer to the so-called "obstruction of justice" scenario which the Managers, prosecutor David Schipper-crite and the Office of Scaife-dependent Counsel were attempting to flog. Yeah, the Managers ran the risk of looking like bullies putting the much-liked, matronly Currie on the stand... but going for Sid Blumenthal instead?Well, as it turns out, some crucial facts have emerged over the last couple days, and The Doc feels even more strongly that Blumenthal was rolled -- and that it may well backfire on a couple of the House Managers even more than it has on Hitchens.The first was a fact already well-known to anyone following the Lewinsky flap -- she'd been characterized as a stalker in the press just after the story broke, nearly two months before the now-notorious Hitchens-Blue-Blumenthal schmooze -- a characterization which was reportedly the assessment of White House personnel staffers who packed her up and shipped her out to the Pentagon.The second was a detail The Doc assumed correctly, yet failed to merit mention on the Sunday political gabfests: the Hitchens-Blue-Blumenthal conversation was off the record.The third was reported yesterday in the Washington Post:
Apparently, a Republican to whom [Hitchens] confided the lunch anecdote tipped off Susan Bogart, investigative counsel for the House Judiciary Committee.According to Hitchens, Bogart phoned him around 4 p.m. Friday and asked pointed, obviously informed, questions about Blumenthal's alleged comments. Convinced that she knew anyway, Hitchens reprised his account of the lunch. Bogart asked him if he would make a sworn statement. Hitchens agreed. But when two House staffers arrived around 8 p.m. to obtain his signature, Hitchens stressed, as he did yesterday on Meet the Press, that he would never testify against Blumenthal in a prospective perjury trial -- a formulation that struck many as bizarre, given that an affidavit is evidence by itself. Stop right there -- evidence of what? That people give journalists information on background? There was nothing illegal about Blumenthal doing that -- unlike the case of the Independent Counsel staff, who are bound by grand jury secrecy laws and rule 6(e). Lord knows, they'd never violate those strictures with journalists, lest they face multiple investigations and possible indictment.But I digress.There's been a big development with respect to this third fact: this morning, on MSNBC, Hitchens said that that if any party tries to use the affidavit to go after Blumenthal, he will not only withdraw the affidavit but risk being held in contempt of Congress. Hitchens knows he's been played like a fiddle -- but we doubt the "free press" is going to tell you that Hitchens has decided to be a man and play back!Finally, the fourth tidbit: last night's edition of Salon carried an interesting story by Joe Conason concerning questioning during Blumenthal's deposition, including: a line of questioning from Lindsey Graham concerning investigator Terry Lenzner and New York Daily News editorial director Harold Evans in what looks like an attempt to "tie" Blumenthal to "derogatory" stories regarding Ken Starr's Office of Independent Counsel; an eyebrow-raising phone call from Senator Arlen Specter to columnist Gene Lyons on February 4 -- in what Conason points out is a possible violation of Senate Rule 29; and an even more bizarre phone call from House Manager Asa Hutchinson to former University of Arkansas professor Bill Harrison concerning what Gene Lyons may have said to him just about a year ago.The Doc encourages you to read Conason's piece, and to consider for yourself just how and why Hutchinson knew that Lyons and Harrison were socializing -- and why Lyons, who along with Conason is one of the few journalists to raise serious questions concerning the Starr investigations (and is in fact working on a book concerning the attempt to remove Clinton from office), now seems to have been dragged into this mess by, of all people, Hutchinson, who made his name in part by prosecuting Bill Clinton's brother.And no, I do not digress in bringing up that point about Hutchinson.Not to put too fine a point on it, but The Doc smells the stinkfinger of a Clinton-hating snoop (of a similar species to, say, David Bossie) feeding information about journalists critical of Kenneth W. Starr to the Managers to set a perjury trap for perhaps the most vocal opponent within the White House of Starr's pattern and practice of abuse and corruption, Sid Blumenthal.And while you're at it, consider this: the investigation of a land deal in which the Clintons lost money led circuitously to the impeachment and trial of Clinton. Now, the partisan case based on far-fetched conclusions concerning highly circumstantial evidence by the House Judiciary Committee has led circuitously to a shadowy and secretive investigation of the press and their sources.Does it worry you as much as it does The Doc that the House Judiciary Committee supports and then engages in conduct which has a chilling effect on the press, the first amendment and civil liberties?'Nuff said.
Click here for Dave "Doctor" Gonzo's previous commentary in American Politics Journal.
|
