Search American Politics
FEATURE
NEW YORK -- APRIL 30th 1998 -- In his first solo news conference this year , President Bill Clinton won the day against a cavalcade of pundits egging him "come clean" on the Monica Lewinsky affair.
The President took the podium as news dominated on Judge Norma Hollaway's decision that Monica Lewinsky did not have an immunity deal with Ken Starr and that Mr. Starr may indict Webster Hubbell, his wife, lawyer and tax accountant on tax fraud charges.
The President opened with talk about the US economy saying, "We are living in an American economic renaissance," with the economy growing at 4.2%. First quarter unemployment at the lowest in 28 years, inflation the lowest in 30 years and consumer confidence at its highest level in 30 years.
But he also moved quickly to say that budget surpluses should not be used for anything until social security is safe for the new century. The President also called on Congress to renew its commitment to the International Monetary Fund and to pay our United Nations dues which are over a billion dollars in arrears. He pointed to the debate over NATO enlightenment as a sign the bipartisanship is alive with Democrat Senators Daschle and Biden joining with Republican Senators Lott and Helms to support new entry nations, Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic into NATO.
The questioning was led by Helen Thomas pinging the President by asking Clinton whether he stands by his previous denials of any relationship with Monica Lewinsky or that anyone encouraged her to lie "while I have the floor do you think that (Ken Starr) has gone beyond the call and is "out to get you."
"Well, I think that modestly observant people are fully capable of drawing their own conclusions to the latter question, and as to the former question, I have answered it repeatedly and have nothing to add to my former answer. I have repeatedly said what the answer to that question is."
Then came a Wall Street question, handled deftly by the President and upbeat on underlying fundamentals and steady growth. "I'd rather it be going up then down," he quipped.
Then came an Iraq question where the President talked about being encouraged by the inspections cooperation which came as a surprise to us in that the chief inspector of the UN has been on television all week complaining that the Iraqis have been anything but cooperative re nerve gas and bio-weapons.
Was this a signal?
Then Sam Donaldson began his LOUDER-than-sane question, on the subject of scandal: "Mr. President, quite a few Americans seem to believe it doesn't matter what you may have done in private moments and that's between you and your wife and some are saying it doesn't even matter if you've broken the law, obstructing justice or committing perjury. Now you deny wrongdoing, I understand, but as a standard for presidents, what do you think, does it matter what you do in private moments as alleged and particularly does it matter if you have committed perjury or in other sense broken the law?"
This is a typical Donaldson question. If he asked it of anyone else, even a stranger, he could expect a punch in his sloppy mouth, but Clinton just smiled a bit, and said, "Well since I have answered the underlying questions, I really believe it's important for me not to say anymore about this. I think that I'm in some ways the last person who needs to be having a national conversation about this. My job as leader is to lead the country and to deal with the great public issues facing the country and to prove Justice Scalia right, when he said that nothing that could be done to me in a legal way would in any way affect my job as President it would be just be one of those things and I could go right on and do my job and I am going to do my best to prove him correct by doing the publics...
At that point in his answer, the pompous and always rude Donaldson, actually cut off the President shouting "DON'T YOU THINK THAT PRESIDENTS OUGHT TO OBEY THE LAW?"
Now we know that Sam is under a strain, having become the laughing stock of those who observe the White House Press Corps critically and among some members of the Corps itself. But we ask, Who the heck is Donaldson to be such a rude little punk to any President, let alone one as gracious as Bill Clinton has been to him. Most people we've talked to say that Donaldson ought to be barred from the White House press room for his adolescent and nearly insane antics.
The tone of Donaldson's questions were pathetically conspiratorial asking NOT whether Clinton thought Presidents should be honest, but instead implying that the President was guilty of obstruction and committing perjury, while simultaneously hinting he was. Donaldson's psychotic tantrum, screaming over the President's answer in his supremely offensive way gives credence to Hillary Clinton's conspiracy theories surrounding the press, at least.
But we think Donaldson is simply desperate and just plain old hat. A once-respected anchor, he is now merely just one more body in the White House, with two shaky shows on ABC. We are sorry for him. He doesn't even have a book to tout like his sidekick Coke Roberts.
The President turned away from Donaldson as if he wasn't there and signaled another reporter for a question. This reporter opened the door for the famous Clinton one liner:
Reporter ( We think it was Wolf Blitzer) : "Mr. President, I hate to beat a dead horse, but let me just follow that up . . "
Clinton: (Smiling) "No you don't (hate to beat a dead horse) - causing the room to break out in laughter."
That ended Donaldson's pathetic attempt to embarrass Bill Clinton.
Will he ever learn?
Blitzer went on his own soliloquy: "Ken Starr's supporters make the case that he could be wrapping up his investigation except for the delaying tactics put forward by your lawyers, your aides - specifically the privilege assertions denying the Secret Service the right to testify, denying some of your aides the right to testify, denying the first lady the right to answer to certain questions because of these privileged questions. A lot of Americans are having a hard time understanding why assert privilege when there's nothing to hide?"
Let's examine this question to see the strategy used by the Clinton-hating press like Blitzer.
First, Blitzer puts forward an idea that Ken Starr would have wrapped up his investigation long ago had it not been for the President seeking sound legal advice. In short, Blitzer thinks that if the President is innocent he wouldn't need lawyers, wouldn't need to remain silent about Lewinsky more than he'd like to, and would be able to answer Sam Donaldson's inane questions without blinking.
Of course this is far from the case. Federal and state prisons have released hundreds, if not thousands of prisoners over the last decades-- all innocent in retrospect. These men and women weren't even the focus of a huge, orchestrated, and heavily funded witch hunt which has spanned five years and expended perhaps more than $120 million dollars in independent counsel, congressional committee and related costs of defense from wild charges made from all corners of the Republican world -- not to mention the fact that Congress has done little else but focus on Clinton trumped-up scandals for at least three years. So, to suggest that the President is free to "talk" is idiotic -- as well as unsound legal advice. The first thing any defense lawyer tells any defendant -- falsely accused or not -- is to keep their mouth shut. Every reporter knows this, yet they treat their readers and viewers as dunces, all to boost ratings points and circulation based on scandal for which Americans have a well-known penchant.
Next Blitzer announces the "crimes" as if they had, indeed, occurred - "... denying the Secret Service the right to testify, denying some of your aides the right to testify, denying the first lady the right to answer to certain questions because of these privileged questions."
These are the BIG LIES - but covered in mush. Blitzer does not even bother to couch his lies with words like "allegations" which most good reporters swallow to fool the viewer. Blitzer just recites the lies like his mantra. The truth is, the President DID NOT deny the Secret Service's right to testify -- the Secret Service did. The President did not deny his aide's the right to testify -- he cannot. If privilege was invoked it was invoked by the either the aides or the Office of the President and its lawyers, which is something quite apart from Bill Clinton. Bill Clinton also did not deny Hillary Clinton the right to answer all of Starr's five hours of questions. She did. She denied Starr the right to have her testify against who she considers a loving husband and someone she loves as well.
Then Blitzer follows with another BIG LIE - that "A lot of Americans are having a hard time understanding why assert privilege when there's nothing to hide?" Blitzer knows that "a lot" of Americans are sick of Ken Starr and the Republican's attempt to harass the Clinton's out of the White House while destroying their friends, family and associates at the same time. BLitzer also knows that most Americans could care less about Bill Clinton's private life.
That's the truth. Buy it.
Clinton responded to Blitzer, calmly and assuredly :
"First of all you've asked three questions. Let me deal with them. On the First Lady's testimony: Mr. Kendall's (Hillary clinton's lawyer) response blows what they said out of the water better than anything I could say and amounts to a shame on them for saying that. Secondly, with regard tot he Secret Service, I literally have had no involvement in that decision whatever. The position they take is the position that they believe is best for the institution of the presidency... open the pleadings and the briefs so you and the American people can read them and evaluate them. If the court changes the rules I hope we can release the pleadings and the briefs so all of you can ask questions about it"
A question on Russia cooled things down a bit, and the President was forced to whip into a discussion of technology and weapons transfers as well as the Middle East Peace Agreement.
Even Claire Shipmann got into the act asking whether the President felt "personally responsible" for his friend's and acquaintances legal fees and whether he would help with those crippling bills.
The President said he would if he can and then went on to say, "I feel terrible about it. The Independent Counsel can spend ten, twenty, thirty, forty or 50 years and spend $40 million today, $100 million tomorrow -- you're laughing -- but we have this Resolution Trust Corporation report two years ago which exhaustively reviewed every issue relative to Whitewater and it didn't have any affect and it just went on and on and on, and they're never targets of any investigation therefore they are not subject to any reimbursement."
"Do you feel responsible for that at all yourself, I mean is that a personal...
"No, if there's one person in the world I'm not responsible for it's Mr. Starr. I think all of you would admit that, and his behavior and what he and Mr. Hewing have decided to do, I don't think there's any American who believes I'm responsible for that.
Clinton took further questions on Big Tobacco and held out hope for Tobacco legislation this year.
"The worse thing in the world will be to play politics with our kids lives."
Back to scandal: A reporter asked,"Republicans have been notching up questions about your moral authority. How important if moral authority to you as you deal with tobacco and drugs? What effect do you think this whole wave of controversies have had on your moral authority and what kind of moral authority do your Republican critics have?"
This almost seemed like a planted question, but even so, we were glad it was asked.
"Well...If I were to answer them in kind, I might be able to damage their reputation, which they might be able to do to me, but I could have no effect on their character, just as they can have none on mine. And therefore I think if I were to answer them in kind it would be more a reflection on my character than their reputation. I think that it's very important for the President to be able to stand up for the values of the American people collectively and for communities and for families and for individuals. And I think this Administration has a good record and I believe I have a good record for standing up for the things that will helps raise our children stronger and keep our families stronger and keep our country stronger. At least I have done my best. These things are distracting and we live in a time where they're more prominent than they have been in most times in our country's history although not all, and I deal with them the very best way I can. But I do not think the right thing for me to do is to respond in kind. The right thing for me to do is to let others defend me as best they can and to go on and worry about the American people."
Someone wondered whether the President would tell the Democratic National Committee not to take tobacco money. He responded he did not have that power.
QUESTION: Now that Starr has said that the end is not near, are you willing to live with these questions hanging over you for the rest of your Administration?
"Absolutely....That means that I think every American who had observed the conduct of the Independent Counsel would expect me to follow the advice of my counsel and that's what I intend to do."
QUESTION: If you believe that Ken Starr, is as you say, running a partisan vendetta, and especially if you think he is wasting taxpayer money as you've suggested here, why not ask the Attorney General Reno to remove him?
"That would not be an appropriate thing for me to do."
And that was that.
On Newt Gingrich's threats of no cooperation unless Clinton is more cooperative with Starr:
"Oh I don't think anyone really seriously believes that's what the last three of four days have been about. That' about politics. And I'm not going to let ... I can be responsible for a lot of things, but I am not responsible for the Speaker's behavior, neither however will I respond to it. And nothing he says about me personally, nothing, will keep me from working with him and with other Republicans in the Congress to do everything I possibly can on every issue before us. There is nothing that he can say about me, for whatever reason, that will effect my willingness to sit down with him and others and work for the benefit of this country. So it's not going to get in my way. It is simply not. I am not going to permit it to happen."
Another reporter tried Tim Rusert's tired old line: "You said you've answered the questions, but you've offered no explanation for her (Monica Lewinsky's) dozens of visits to the White House after her employment here ended, no explanation for the Secret Service concern about her behavior in the West Wing. No explanation about the extraordinary effort by your secretary and your closest friends to find her a job. Sir, could you now give us a better sense of what appears to be an extraordinary relationship that you had with this woman and fulfill your promise to the American people of 'more rather than less, sooner rather than later."
It didn't phase Bill Clinton: "Well, first of all you have more information than you did when I said that and secondly, I have nothing else to say. I have been advised, and I think it's good advice, under the circumstances, ... But I just don't have anything else to say about that."
QUESTION: Mr.President, your adviser Sidney Blumenthal, last week called Ken Starr's deputy, Hickman Hewing, a religious fanatic who has claimed he operates from a presumption of guilt. Is that an appropriate comment and do you agree with it, and if you believe that Starr is USING not just ABUSING his office in an effort to destroy your presidency.
"I believe there was an article in the New Yorker where he made the comment on presumption of guilt. His words ought to stand or fall - nobody else ought to be able to characterize them."
QUESTION: Pubic polls have suggested that a strong majority still approves of the job your doing as president,, but a majority no longer feels that you share their moral values and they say that they no longer respect you as a person. I wonder if you find that distressing and how you account for it.
"Well, I don't think it's hard to account for. It's been part of a strategy that goes all the way back to 1991. It used to distress me greatly, it doesn't anymore. You know, I will say again. All these people that have working hard on this for seven years now -- They can affect my reputation. They can do nothing, for good or ill, to affect my character. Unfortunately they can't make it any better either. They can't make it any better, they can't make it any worse. They can't have an impact on it. And its obvious, I think, to the American people that this has been a hard, well-financed, vigorous effort over a long period of time by people who could not contest the ideas that I brought to the table, couldn't even contest the values behind the ideas that I brought to the table and certainly can't quarrel with the consequences of my service and therefore personal attack seems legitimate. I have never done that in my public life. I don't believe in it and I'm not going to participate in it. I can't get in an argument with the American people about this. All I can do is show up for work every day -- do the very best I can. That's what I did today, that's what I intend to do tomorrow."
Perhaps most poignant was just a few words to one reporter who asked about the President as a role model.
Bill Clinton answered,"Those are questions you have to examine without my involvement. There is a difference between what you ask and what has really happened over the past five years."
As Geraldo Rivera put it early this evening, "This is The Big Squeeze." The big squeeze from Newt Gingrich, Dick Armey and the rest of the witch hunters on Capitol Hill. Their anointed ring leader, Ken Starr, has begun one final assault on the White House this week, this time on the backs of the beleaguered Webb Hubbell, his wife and family, and on Monica Lewinsky who faces jail unless she tells Starr what he wants to hear.
Mr. President, you're right. There is a big difference between acting as a good role model and having your reputation taken from you as quickly as one can say "Dick Scaife."
- The Editors
Search American Politics Provided by Hot Bot | Searchfor |
"JK, a client, a friend, and one of the keenest minds in American politics, told me one afternoon: 'A good place to begin thinking critically about American and Western European democracies to ask yourself: What kind of man or woman would choose to run for public office? Think about that.' - I did."
Copyright©AMERICAN POLITICS JOURNAL INC 1996-1998 Reader Services Post Office Box 0409, Navesink, NJ 07716 FAX: 908.872.7604