Pundit Pap for Sunday June 7th 1998

FEATURE

Pap Galore!
Pundit Pap for Sunday June 7th 1998

NEW YORK -- Monday, June 8, 1998 -- Partisan right-wing Republicans are regularly given free rein to bash President Clinton by their friends in the broadcast press -- but a careful "read between the lines" of their attacks, most notably of Orrin Hatch's appearance on Meet the Press, shows major concerns on the part of GOP leaders over the direction Ken Starr's investigation into Whateveritisgate is taking.

There was generally more talk about Monica Lewinsky's legal team and Ken Starr's gloves-off judicial slugfest with "the White House" (hey, what about the Justice Department and Secret Service taking him on too?). There may have been less talk of sale of dual-use technology to China, but the punditocracy attempted to keep the focus on Clinton's "problems." Nevertheless, they also exposed concerns about damage Ken Starr is doing to GOP hopes of holding onto the House in November!

Fox News Sunday

Fox News Sunday decided to lead with the continuing questions into release of dual-use technology to Chinese interests -- the only major Sunday chat show to do so, much to their credit -- with Senate Select Committee on Intelligence Chairman Richard Shelby (R-AL) as their first guest.

There was a surprising exchange between Shelby and Brit Hume, with Brit first asking: "…we know that the administration made decisions that were beneficial to both the Chinese government and to Loral in the aftermath of that. However, these were not inconsistent with decisions made by previous administrations. It doesn't seem likely, does it, that you will ever establish that the administration, if it did the wrong thing here, did it for the wrong reasons, does it?"

Wow! It almost sounds like Brit is sticking up for Clinton (as with his comment on Clinton's China visit possibly being a plus last week)!

Shelby sent the question in a slightly unintended direction: "That's a good point you raise, Brit -- it could be at the end of the inquiry a lot of bad policy, some bad decisions, and so forth. But we're going to try to get into what we call a historical perspective on this. We've got to go back, I believe, to what, when did this start? When did this transfer of technology start? It started obviously in the Reagan Administration, then went to the Bush administration, and now in the Clinton administration."

Brit (now obviously nonplused that, God forbid, good conservatives like Ronald Reagan and George Bush were getting their names dragged into Chinagate -- and by a Republican, no less): "Well, wait a minute…"

Shelby: "What did they do then that's different from what the Clinton administration has done? And I think there are some differences, but we'll have to get into that in the hearings. And we plan to call the top officials of each one of those administrations."

Heck, we think Shelby ought to call Bush himself!

Tony asked Shelby if he would "give" Janet Reno thirty days she says she needs to consider what she should do with materials pertaining to the Justice Department investigation into Loral; Shelby replied that "if they will just give the Intelligence Committee the information that we requested… it's not going to impair in any way a criminal investigation. But it will help our inquiry tremendously."

The danger is, of course, that it will also help Democrats label the GOP as the "party of investigation, not legislation." If Shelby can force the medicine of true bipartisanship down the GOP leadership's throat, he may be able to defuse that Democrat criticism to a reasonable extent.

But don't count on Gingrich, Hatch, Armey or Lott ever letting it happen.

The second segment was the first Whateveritisgate "face-off" of the weekend, featuring Senators John Ashcroft (R-MO) and Carl Levin (D-MI).

Ashcroft was his typical blunt, uncharismatic Clinton-bashing self: "The policy of the attorney general is to supervise Ken Starr. And if she had a problem with Ken Starr, she is authorized to fire him [you mean, like the Saturday Night Massacre?]. This isn't just attorney-client privilege; this a government-paid attorney not supposed to represent the president in criminal matters — supposed to represent the people of the United States."

Hey John -- we'd like to tell you about ANOTHER government-paid attorney whose idea of investigating an Arkansas land deal gone sour is to go nosing through the private life of the President, abusing investigatory power and running a partisan investigation in collusion with a frivolous civil suit while having multiple conflicts of interest.

Now THAT'S an issue!

Ashcroft went on to claim the Clinton Administration was "fuzzing this up and talking about attorney-client privilege" -- as if the President is not entitled to same.

What was that saying about people who live in glass houses, John? His words are spin, pure and simple -- no member of Congress wants to open the door to their privileged conversations with staffers damaged, and many of them may well regret it if the President loses this privilege -- they may be next.

Ashcroft actually fancies himself a contender for the GOP Presidential nod in 2000. He'll get some support from the small hard core of right-wingers in the GOP -- but not much more; even if he were a moderate, his off-putting smugness would still be his Achilles' heel.

Levin got in his licks in response to Tony Snow's question about the president "stonewalling." Surprisingly, Tony Snow tried the same tactic he did a few weeks ago with Barney Frank -- constant interruption. Here's how it played out.

Levin: "The President is not above the law. That is clear. That's why we created the Independent Counsel Law. But Ken Starr is not above the law either -- there are limits on the power of an independent counsel, and the law insisted that one of those limits be that he follow policies of the Attorney General. No Attorney General, no US attorney working for the Justice Department that I know of, that I've talked to, would be subpoenaing Monica Lewinsky's mother, would be subpoenaing…"

Tony: "Well, now wait…" [What's wrong, Tony? Carl Levin hit a nerve or something?]

Levin: …excuse me, subpoenaing…

Tony: "…Senator, no…"

Levin: "…book stores in order to get material that Monica Lewinsky may have bought. No US…"

Tony: "…Senator…"

Levin: "…attorney..."

Tony: "Senator!"

Ashcroft: "I disagree with that." [Boy, are WE ever shocked!]

Levin: "…excuse me, no US attorney that I have talked to would go anywhere near as far as what this independent counsel has done. And that is why I believe that at the moment, there is no effective limit on this independent counsel, unless…"

Tony (impatient): "Well, Senator…"

Levin: "…the Attorney General..."

Tony: "I'm going to break in." [for only the SIXTH time]

Levin: "…enforces the law that says he must -- not 'may' -- he must follow the policies of the Attorney General. I don't believe he's doing it."

It was hilarious -- Tony trying to defend FNS from being sullied by Levin's "bad" behavior. And Ashcroft's retort about Starr "pursu[ing] the truth" had us laughing.

Maybe you should lay off the frappucino, Tony!

The following segment on California's Proposition 227, which defeated bilingual education in California, was wonk heaven. Texas Democratic House candidate Victor Morales and Ron Unz (author of Prop 227) had a cordial and low-key intellectual slugfest. No fireworks, but plenty of food for thought on a regional issue.

Sure, it will probably not prove to be a "hot button" issue outside of larger cities with multiethnic populations sending kids to public school systems -- it's still not a major issue in New York City, for example -- but it plays into longer-term issues of the "multi-ethnicization" of America: perhaps more racial tensions on one hand, but multiracial marriages and interracial adoptions on the other.

A shame these issues, which will inform the debate in the long term far more than "failed programs," weren't addressed in the segment.

Unz in a nutshell: "95 percent of the children who start a given school year in California not knowing English at the beginning of that school year, have not learned English by the end of the school year. And I think any system with a 95 percent failure rate after 30 years of trying to make it work should not be continued."

Morales in a nutshell: "The experience that I've had with people that teach bilingual education is great. It's a great program that has, yes, certain problems, but it always bothers me that you always have these little stories like, for example, the picketing parents, and use that to knock down an entire program. Sure, there are problems, but let's go after them."

The roundtable was a bit more freewheeling than usual, and included our favorite lines of the week --

Juan Williams: "You know [William Ginsburg] had a piece in the Washington Post op-ed page, again going after Starr's unconstitutional monstrosity. It's incredible, Bill Ginsburg knows no limit!"

Mara Liasson: "Well, look -- James Carville has some company!"

Meet the Press

The first thing out of Tim Russert's mouth this weekend: a double barrel of spin: "Is Ken Starr seeking the truth or out to get the president? Is Bill Clinton avoiding the truth or fighting for important legal principles?" This second question is typical Clinton-bashing by Russert, implying that Clinton has anything to hide. "Avoiding the truth?" That presupposes a coverup, and so far we know that the only fact Blumenthal "hid" from the grand jury up until this previous week -- in the face of a politically motivated witch hunt -- is that he has NOTHING incriminating Clinton.

Guess what, Tim -- maybe he IS both "hiding the truth" (i.e. facts that exonerate him from wrongdoing) in an effort to protect the institution of the Presidency AND "fighting for important legal principles."

Tim then gave free rein to Paul Curran, a former Special Prosecutor during the Carter Administration to elaborate on his now notorious Wall Street Journal op-ed hatchet job comparing "Mr. Clinton's approach to the independent counsel's investigation" to the "Mafiosi" (Rep. John McCollum would mention this trash-talking piece later on Meet the Press).

At least former White House Counsel Jack Quinn was on hand to balance the issue: "Let me draw the distinctions between these two situations: Paul Curran here did a good, and responsible, and prompt and unbiased job when he investigated President Carter’s situation. The American people had confidence in what he did. He didn't probe into attorney-client privilege on every front he could, he didn't try to get between a President of the United States and the Secret Service. He didn't try to sweat a 24-year-old woman and get her to wear a wire in the Oval Office and tape the President -- nor did he participate in setting a perjury trap for an incumbent president in a civil case in which the prosecutor had taken a position before he ever became prosecutor! These are entirely different situations!"

Quinn also cut through the cow patties with a chainsaw in response to Tim's question of Clinton, as opposed to Carter, "asserting all those privileges": "Ken Starr has a problem with people asserting their legal rights -- that makes him different from other prosecutors. And let me just remind you that Ken Starr has had no problem arguing passionately that his corporate clients are entitled to a confidential, privileged relationship with him -- but when other people do it, when the President of the United States does it, he calls it 'obstruction of justice.' "

Bet your bottom dollar you won't see that in any "News Analysis" articles in The New York Times.

Russert then turned to Senator Orrin Hatch (R-UT), who became the latest GOP leader to telegraph that Republicans are facing a political dilemma over whether or not Starr should (read: will be allowed to) present an "interim" report on his investigation into all things Clinton.

Check out this quote: "If you look at this objectively , it does look, at this time, as though the president and his people who are advising him are literally stonewalling this every step of the way, for one reason: they just plain want to get past the November elections and make sure that people in their party are not hurt in those elections."

Read: they're defending the power of the Presidency and it looks like we might get creamed come Election Day.

It's worth noting that the MSNBC website has the "subjectively" instead of "objectively" in their transcript -- hey, for once, NBC News got close to the truth, even if they did it in misquoting Hatch!

Another chunk of spin from Hatch: "President Carter didn't raise any of these privileges. By the way, neither did President Reagan when Iran-Contra came."

Hatch forgets that Reagan asserted executive privilege nearly 20 times during his Presidency, far more times than Clinton. Clinton has reserved this assertion exclusively to defend the authority of the Presidency and the balance of powers. Down the road, Republican presidents -- assuming we ever have any more -- will thank him for his efforts, though not publicly!

Russert couldn't resist asking this zinger: "Senator Hatch, has President Clinton become the 'Defendant-in-Chief?" -- picking up on Gingrich's cheap shot late last week.

Gee, Newt, is Clinton a "defendant?" Not anymore, you two-bit money-launderer -- that civil case got thrown out of court! Or did you forget?

Orrin: "I don't think so. And I hope that this all works out for him. In all honesty, I think it'd be better for the country if it did work out well for the president."

In other words, Republicans are finally acknowledging that keeping the Whatevergate spin going will only help jack up Clinton's approval ratings and guarantee Democratic control of the House this November!

Orrin surrendered on another front: "I don't see how Ken Starr’s going to send up a report in the next three or four weeks… if and when he does, he's going to have to have awfully strong facts in order for an impeachment trial to be justified. Now, many feel that there are tremendously strong facts in this matter so far. But I still think that we have to look at this and follow it through. We have to be fair to the President."

In other words, Starr had better not screw things up with an interim report, and key Republicans are getting scared of the prospect of even the first phases of impeachment!

In the process of the interview, Hatch deceptively asserted "Ken Starr has won 11 or 12 straight major cases on the merits" -- when, in fact, many of these rulings have been on minor or only moderately important points of law. Of course, there was no mention of Starr getting slapped down on the issue of nosing through Barnes and Noble's book receipts by "the Supremes."

Hatch also made a pretty lame segue from the issue of the President "perjuring" himself to alleged "hush money" paid to Webster Hubbell. I'd love to ask Hatch about a more apt comparison-- what he thinks of all the job offers James Watt received when he was forced out as Reagan's Interior Secretary.

The roundtable consisted of almost nothing but Russert asking his minions questions worded to make the White House look as "guilty" as possible:

"Do they expect President Clinton to testify before the grand jury if subpoenaed or testify at Monica Lewinsky's trial if subpoenaed?… If the president refuses to go before the grand jury, as is indicated,… Do [the public] think that lying about sex is something that the President would have to leave office over?"

The best exchange was with David Broder: "You were in California for several weeks -- did any voter out there talk to you about this?"

Broder: "They talk about it, but they talk about it with somewhere between dismay and disgust. I think people just can't believe that this is going on endlessly in Washington. And the question they ask is: Why are they making such a big deal of this?"

Tim: "Why is who? The press, the Republicans, Ken Starr?"

Broder: "The press. The whole political system. I think, you know, whatever happened, it was not a big thing in their lives. They think it ought to be finished: 'Do whatever you're going to do, and then move on.' "

Given Tim's line of questioning, we don't think the press is paying attention, David -- they're too busy chasing ratings over scandal.

And if this issue is being tried in the public, Russert is a primary source of "amicus Starr-iae" briefs!

Gwen Ifill got in a good dig at Gingrich's "Defendant-in-Chief" comment: "Name-calling right now is a better choice than holding hearings."

If that doesn't summarize the GOP's "Get Clinton" strategy, nothing does.

This Week

In an obvious quick-and-dirty ratings bid -- as well as an effort to flog the always-popular Monica Lewinsky angle to the President's troubles -- This Week took advantage of her defense attorney changing-of-the-guard and featured Johnnie Cochran as their first guest.

Needless to say, Sam had to ask if the Lewinsky family had asked him to become her lead attorney: "It wasn't the family, but I had received a call about whether or not my interests -- I was interested in the case or not, and I indicated quickly that I was not and that was the end of it."

I would've liked him to complete the "…my interests" slip!

NOTE TO THE EDITORS FROM DAVE "DOCTOR" GONZO: And I for one would've liked to see Cochran defend Lewinsky in court. Imaging these "couplets" in a Cochran summation:

"If the dress has no stain, Starr must refrain."
"There's no book receipt, so let Starr take the heat!"
"There was no relationship, and Starr is just so plain un-hip."
"If the kneepads don't fit, you must acquit!"

Cochran also said "I just felt this was a case that I needed to stay on the sidelines and talk about rather than get involved in. And that's rare for me, Cokie."

In other words, he stands to gain more in this case as a pundit -- so look for Johnny on Court TV, Rivera Live, Burden of Proof, Politically Incorrect and Celebrity Jeopardy! Check local listings for date and time!

Cochran's overview of the situation: her new lawyers, Plato Cacheris and Jacob Stein, "work hard to represent their client and get a deal for her."

Cokie: "And is a deal -- does it mean immunity?"

Cochran: "I think so. I think it is still open. I think if you look at what Mr. Bakaly said this week and that the door is still open for a deal."

We're not so sure -- Cacheris and Stein are reportedly taking a lot of time going through documents and paperwork from not only William Ginsberg but Monica's previous lawyer Frank Carter.

That doesn't seem to be the sort of thing a law firm eager to "get a deal" would make their top priority.

The next guest was Sidney Blumenthal's attorney William McDaniel. Sid Blumenthal appeared before Starr's DC grand jury earlier this week, and McDaniel described the "hurry up and wait" questioning in which the panel asked Blumenthal bunches of insubstantial questions of the "What do you guys say about us?" nature. They asked Blumenthal the key question at the very end of the session, "What did you and the President discuss?" -- then told him he'd be called back, a clear case of intimidation at best, harrassment at worst.

Sam Donaldson then asked the "big" question: "Are you in a position to tell us what he answered?"

Well, duuuuh, Sam! Of course McDaniel wasn't: "I don't think it would be appropriate for me to do so. And there may be a time when that occurs. Mr. Blumenthal has to come back to the grand jury. But I do note that it hasn't leaked yet. And you can rest assured that if it had been critical of the President of the United States, those prosecutors would have leaked it immediately."

OUCH! That was a shot not only at Starr but alleged Starr leakers Hickman Ewing and Michael Emmick -- and unofficial "spokespeople" such as Stuart Taylor and Barbara Olson.

George Will did something rare -- he asked two stupid questions in a row, earning our second "duuuh" of the week: "Let me get this straight, when he was asked 'What did the president tell you?' he did not at that point claim executive privilege?"

McDaniel: "No sir, he did not, he answered that question."

George: "Why not?"

McDaniel: "Because the court had ruled that he was required to answer that question!"

Duuuh!

George got onto the subject of "things" Blumenthal "said" to members of the press regarding members of Starr's staff -- opening the door for McDaniel to say "These are our men and women entrusted with great power and authority in our system. They're investigating the President of the United States. They'd like to indict him for crimes or have him impeached. I think there's a public interest in knowing who these people are, and what their record has been in the past -- and with regard to some of them, their record hasn't been very good. They've conducted abusive investigations. They've harassed witnesses. They've been lectured by federal judges for bringing frivolous prosecutions."

What's with George -- is he actually trying to bolster Clinton?

Hand it to Cokie to get in a third Duuuh in the same segment: "If this is an out of control or whatever it is investigation, with all these terrible people, why doesn't Mr. Blumenthal advise the President to fire them all?"

DUUUUUUUUUUUUUHHH, Cokie! Do the words "Saturday Night Massacre" ring a bell?

McDaniel said as much: "…Whether or not you fire Mr. Starr is a very difficult question given what happened 25 years ago in the Watergate affair and it's a difficult and awkward political situation for a President to be in. "

Difficult and awkward? Methinks you understate the case, Bill -- abusive, coercive, politically motivated witch hunt by the "Independent" Counsel is more like it.

In the final segment, Congressmen Bill McCollum (R-FL) and Henry Waxman (D-CA) faced off over Ken Starr and related matters.

On the matter of Starr's submitting an "interim" report, McCollum's words merit a look: "The law says the special prosecutor is supposed to advise Congress if he has any substantial and credible information that may constitute an impeachable offense, so I think it depends entirely upon whether he has substantial and credible information. That doesn't mean we act on it if we do get a report like that. I think it will be assessed by the Judiciary Committee in the House, and -- if it is like the Supreme Court situation this past week -- we may well find it is premature and send it back to him again."

In other words, Starr probably has nothing, so we'd better quash any "interim" report for fear it will damage GOP hopes to hold onto Congress come election time!

Henry Waxman was disappointing -- he wasn't entirely on top of his "game" in responding to early questions from Sam and George Will about the nature of impeachable offenses, but was surprisingly candid on one issue, the resolution for the President to cooperate more fully with congressional investigations: "I voted for that resolution. But, that resolution was a gimmick. It's the kind of thing we have every day now in the Congress. Instead of dealing with serious issues, like tobacco control, or campaign finance reform or trying to do the something about the abuses of managed care. One day, we're voting on a resolution saying 'President, cooperate more fully with the Congress!' How can you vote against a resolution like that?"

It's not every day you hear a member of Congress admit to voting for legislation that is nothing but spin!

McCollum also slipped this one in after accusing the President of "stonewalling": "He should be dropping the the privilege claim on the Secret Service, and he should be volunteering his own testimony. He is not being presidential right now, if he were being presidential he'd be more focused on other issues."

This sort of attack is directed at diverting attention from the fact that Clinton is focusing on preserving the balance of powers -- something he would not have to deal with had Ken Starr not started his bedsheet-sniffing campaign.

It also left McCollum open for a clever comeback from Waxman: "Republican leaders will reach conclusions and state them, and then later find the facts. We had the embarrassment last week of Dick Armey, the majority leader, announce on the House floor, that one of my most beloved constituents, Bob Hope, had died."

Sam was conspicuous and shameless in his attack on Waxman's point: "I think it's reasonable to say people should check and check and check, but it wasn't just that the Republicans had made it up."

Waxman: "The President was accused of selling cemetery plots at Arlington for campaign contributions. He was accused of altering the videotapes. He was accused of other things…"

Sam (interrupting): "Now you're really shifting ground on us!"

Waxman: "…absolutely falsely, and my chairman, Dan Burton said 'If I can only prove 10 percent of what I believe that Bill Clinton did, he'd be out of there.' It's not a question of what people believe, it's what the facts say and what conclusions we reach once we get the facts."

Shifting ground, Sam? How about Waxman attempting to make a point you don't want to listen to because YOU seem so eager to promote and spin any half-truth that could "bring down" Clinton?

Enough, Sam. Shut up and retire.

-- The Editors

Search American Politics

Provided by Hot Bot

Searchfor