                     | An Open Letter to Abbe Lowell Minority Counsel to the House Judiciary Committee American Politics Journal October 9, 1998 Dear Mr. Lowell, As you begin the unenviable task before you, the nation seems to have long ago come to its senses over the issue of President Clinton's private conduct and desire to conceal an illicit affair. They understand that there are indeed two sides to the story of what is being referred to by the press as "Monicagate," "L'Affaire Lewinsky," and dozens of other sly "noms de scandale" -- and the majority of Americans have decided the investigation into President Clinton's conduct has gone on far, far too long, the entire matter should be dropped, and the country should move on. The partisan vote by the GOP-controlled House to have the Judiciary Committee proceed with an inquiry of impeachment, however, went contrary to the wishes of most Americans. But now, many Americans -- those who care enough about the country to follow media reports on the ongoing crisis -- find their feelings of disproportionality on the part of the Office of Independent Counsel giving way to a strong suspicion of unethical and possibly criminal conduct on the part of members of Kenneth Starr's staff. Recent news stories in The New York Times, The New York Observer, The Washington Post, Salon, The Associated Press, American Politics Journal and other media outlets describe actions undertaken by a cadre of conservative extremist attorneys, reporters, pundits and financiers to trap President Bill Clinton. The actions of this ad hoc group of activists and partisans look unethical and suspicious at the very least. In fact, it is our opinion that you should undertake a thorough investigation into the activities of these individuals with an eye toward the possibility that unlawful entrapment, extortion, abuse of the judicial system, treason, sedition and other crimes against the President, his associates, and the Constitution were committed. It is also our opinion that you should use your subpoena power to bring these people before the House Judiciary Committee and the American people to explain their actions. We would encourage you to start with attorneys Jerome Marcus, George T. Conway III, Peter Smith, James Moody and Richard Porter -- who, according to various reports in Salon, The New York Times and The New York Observer, facilitated covert and possibly illegal contacts between the Office of Independent Counsel and attorneys for Paula Jones. And certainly Jones's various attorneys of the past and present -- Gilbert Davis, Joseph Cammarata, Donovan Campbell and his partners, John Whitehead, and other senior officers of the Rutherford Institute -- should be compelled to testify as to what they know, along with her advisor Susan Carpenter McMillan. Likewise, Linda Tripp should be called to account for her actions -- including just how she managed to be given immunity from prosecution for violating Maryland taping laws so blithely. And her past and present attorneys and associates, including Kirby Behr, Jennifer Grossman (who has been acting as a not-so-stealth spokesperson for Tripp on MSNBC) and her "book agent" Lucianne Goldberg, might be able to shed some light on Tripp's conduct. Too many questions surround the origins of the "talking points" -- just whose idea were they anyway? And there's also the matter of the sort of "prompting" she was giving Monica Lewinsky in their taped conversations. Was Tripp being coached by one or more people on such matters as making sure that that now-infamous dress would never see a cleaning, or that Vernon Jordan should be enlisted for help in finding a job? And who was making copies of the tapes, possibly involving doctoring? Then, of course, there is the issue of just how the contents of then Tripp tapes made their way into the public domain, in a manner meant to damage the President. This needs a thoroughgoing airing. Surely Ms. Goldberg and Ann Coulter -- both of whom, among many other, heard these tapes in advance of their existence being made public -- might be able to shed some light on this. Perhaps they know who was behind the copying, and could clear the air over the issue of whether one tape was "doctored." Much other information seems to have made its way from the grand jury chambers and the OIC into the public domain. And, while it is true that Judge Norma Holloway Johnson has assigned a Special Master to undertake an investigation, the pattern of leaked information -- so much of it from non-White House employees and damaging to the President -- is suspiciously indicative of a politically motivated scorched-earth smear campaign against President Clinton. Surely Steven Brill could enlighten the Judiciary Committee as to what he and Mr. Starr discussed during the research for his now famous "Pressgate" article in Brill's Content. And the matter of how such reporters and commentators as as Steve Labaton, Jackie Judd, Jeff Gerth, Sean Hannity, David Bloom, Matt Drudge, Barbara Olson, Wolf Blitzer, Michael Isikoff, John Fund, Tim Russert and Rush Limbaugh -- to name only a small handful --managed to report on testimony and evidence before grand jury testimony merits investigation. They'll bristle at the possibility of being questioned on their sources -- which would admittedly preclude the possibility of calling them. Better perhaps to call Jackie Bennett, Hickman Ewing, and other members of Starr's staff who have been chummy with the press -- and also Starr supporters and pundits Victoria Toensing and Joseph diGenova, whose reported leaking information to a Dallas newspaper, then calling minutes later to quash the story, made headlines some months back. Where did they get their information? There remain serious questionsregarding Starr's association with the Jones case -- which go back more than four years, to the period before he was named Independent Counsel, when he wrote an amicus brief for Jones. Many of the prosecutorial maneuvers by Starr and his team seem to indicate that he wanted to make the Jones case part of his investigation, and the manner in which he merged his investigation with the Jones case means that the matter should be investigated back to its origins. Judge David Sentelle should be able to shed some insight as to how and why Starr was selected, and whether conversations with Senators Lauch Faircloth and Jesse Helms may have had an effect on the matter. There is also the matter of certain organizations interested in seeing Clinton destroyed that have ties to both the Jones camp and the OIC. The most well-known is The American Spectator. Their "Troopergate" article prompted the Jones lawsuit -- and David Brock now feels he was "burned" by less-than-honest sources for the story. The hard-right monthly undertook an "Arkansas Project," financed by right wing billionaire Richard Mellon Scaife, supervised by right-wing activists David Henderson and Stephen Boynton with the help of Parker Dozhier to dig dirt on Clinton -- an effort that paralleled and overlapped the snoop work of GOP dirty trickster David Bossie. The Arkansas Project enlisted the help of discredited, felonious ex-judge David Hale, an early accuser of wrongdoing by Clinton whose stories tend not to hold much water on closer scrutiny. All the while, the magazine maintained tax-exempt status as a "educational foundation." Spectator board member Theodore Olson is a buddy of Starr -- and his wife Barbara Olson has acted as a spokesperson of sorts for the Starr "point of view." Olson seems to have been behind the dismissal of senior Spectator Ron Burr after Burr began asking questions about where exactly the Arkansas Project money was being spent. And Spectator editor R. Emmett Tyrrell seems to have taken a few all-too-serendipitously timed meetings with impeachment "hawk" and Judiciary Committee member Rep. Bob Barr. Just what was discussed? It seems to us that the chain of events that resulted in President Clinton trying to cover up an illicit affair date back far further than his dalliances with Monica Lewinsky, and are part of a persistent pattern involving unscrupulous and possibly illegal activities, dirty tricks and collusion on the part of enemies of Clinton and the Democratic Party. Therefore, we feel that a determination as to whether articles of impeachment are to be drafted against the President requires that:
Very truly yours, The Editorial Board of American Politics Journal |
Search American Politics