<........................................................................................EXPAND YOUR BROWSER FOR THE BEST READ........................................................................................>
FEATURE
Ken Starr's Leaks to the Washington Post
Backfire and Starr Recants - "Sort of" calling Post Writer Schmidt a Liar
Inside Ken's Stalag
The S*&%T Begins to Fly!
WEDNESDAY APRIL 8th 1998 -NEW YORK--As Kenneth Starr's office begins to leak to the Washington Post in an audacious display of partisan politics, House Majority Leader Dick Armey, already on Newt Gingrich's aging "Get" list is preaching to children about his disgust with the alleged moral conduct of the President. Armey doesn't usually use the word "alleged" and instead positions wild allegations about Bill Clinton as "fact" to anyone who'll listen. Whether an elementary or high school classroom is the place to discuss the sexual habits of politicians is debateable, but Armey -- who says he would resign if he were Clinton -- has his own aged and lurid past which includes complaints by at least three college coeds who he taught and advised that he made them "uncomfortable" with his constant "flirtations" on campus and off.
One of these women, who has chosen to remain anonymous was part of a wide-reaching search on Armey done by the Dallas Observer's Miriam Rosen who interviewed the girl and her mother about Armey. The girl, now out of college with her doctorate left college because, she alleges, Armey made sexual advances to her which made her so uncomfortable she dropped out and was only lured back by a dean who telephoned her and assured her she would no longer have to deal with Armey as her thesis advisor -- or so the story goes. The girl claims not to remember the details of the Armey "assault" -- a hint that she's buried it deep in her subconscious. The story is old, much as Clinton's Paula Jones and Gennifer FLowers stories are old. Thus, this publication will not pillory Mr. Armey for past flirt sessions with coeds under his control, or lynch him for the coeds that will appear, out of the woodwork, to continue his troubles. And you can be sure that's going to happen. We won't even hold him to his promise he'd resign under similar circumstances as he's so charmingly invited Mr. Clinton to do.
You know what? We're going to leave Dick Armey alone.
But we are not going to let Malibu Ken Starr off the hook. Look what he's doing now -- aiding an abetting the GOP congressnuts (and that doesn't include the majority of fine Republican members of the House and Senate, but only a select few) -- who are engaged in a death struggle with the White House. The prize? Nothing, because no matter what Congress does, this President will not back down, and Kenneth Starr has about as much "evidence" that Bill Clinton lied, committed perjury, suborned perjury, raped, molested, sexually assaulted or committed any misdemeanor, let alone a felony of such import as to be "grounds for impeachment."
Only one pundit, Geraldo Rivera -- a recent but brilliant sorter of political chaff from policy corn -- calls it correctly. This is a political witch hunt, thus far dominated by ultra right-wing Republicans seeking destroy not only the President, but his family, friends, acquaintances, supporters and any journalist who dares to question motives.
They have succeeded.
Already a chill so frigid has descended on the Fourth Estate, and one so powerful that once liberal commentators and columnists have taken to emulating Hitler's Reichmachine standards of truth rather than waiting for even a scintilla of fact to back up their wild claims. Witness Howard Fineman and Mike Isikoff of Newsweek, who are, in our estimation, handing on by one fingernail over the Kathleen Willey hustle. Where double and triple corroboration of scandalous charges were once the norm, networks, national magazines and wire services are now printing lies as facts so long as they can hang a quote on someone -- anyone -- in a vain attempt to insulate themselves.
Today, Susan Schmidt of the Washington Post writes that Ken Starr's coven has already written " large sections of their report to the House of Representatives on potentially impeachable offenses by President Clinton in the Monica S. Lewinsky matter, and sources close to the investigation said they may also include material related to Clinton's sworn testimony about Arkansas financial dealings."
Sources "close to the investigation" Not Victoria Toensing and Joe deGenova again!? Haven't we heard enough from them, and aren't they supposed to be investigating the Teamsters?
And notice how the word "potentially" becomes lost in the story itself? The usual trick of the "New Gestapo Press" so very popular among the right wing and born anew"Christians" in and around Washington today.
Ms. Schmidt, once a fine reporter, now says that Starr has "evidence" that requires him to report impeachable offenses to the House of Representatives. Yet she provides no examples of anything that could be labeled "evidence" in any legal or probative sense. Schmidt also alludes that this "evidence" focuses on the Monica Lewinsky matter -- a sure sign that Starr had nothing much before Lewinsky emerged and has nothing much more now, save illegal wire taps provided -- with Starr's aid and abetance by one of the snakiest characters to walk Constitution Avenue since John Wilkes Booth -- Linda Tripp, who herself has been knee-deep in "getcha back" scandal mongering since she was a wallflower teenager and a frequent also-ran in the race for a even a mediocre life.
Starr's bag of tricks must include a Twilight Zone link between the Tripp tapes, gifts exchanged between the President and Lewinsky and a host of psycho-babble testimony from paid and unpaid Clinton haters regarding his alleged "plot" to get Lewinsky to lie in a 'civil matter' -- the scurrilous Paula Jones complaint -- now largely seen as a mockery of justice, a misuse and abuse of judicial process and a just-plain laughing stock as the plaintiff has become herself.
And if you doubted that Starr was politically motivated, ask yourself why he is releasing his report earlier than expected, and without key testimony? Because, dear reader, he is cooperating fully with ultra right House Republicans who want to take up the impeachment matter immediately and before the House adjourns in late May in order that now-beset Republican jackals who led this charge can look better to their constituents who are fed up with all this nonsense.
It is for this reason -- that Starr is seen as leaking for out and out political advantage -- that he rushed to the microphones today and denied there is any time line at all. He knows he is trouble over this statement if made by one of his staff or any of his unofficial spokespeople like the Toensings and the Olsens. Now Starr, who is clumsy with his leaking, is back peddling and saying he might not send a report to the Congress at all.
Starr will not indict Lewinsky for her petty perjury for fear that this would inevitably hold up his reports on Whitewater, and other matters which he has managed to stick his bogus patrician nose into, to federal judges who appointed him in the first place.
Thus, it boils down to Starr attempting to peddle outrageous charges about the President made by Paula Jones, Monica Lewinsky and a host of other paid witnesses who either collect money from sociopaths like Richard Mellon Scaife or peddle their pitiful tell-all books to the highest and basest publishers.
Starr is in for a surprise. Unless he has some very meaty and impossible to deflect evidence, that does not involve normal white lies that accompany any affair of the heart, the Congress will turn him down flat. As a result, he'll lose his appointment at Pepperdine and perhaps his partnership in the Big Tobacco law firm where he spends the majority of time earning his $1 million-a-year plus fees representing the very men and companies who could be called President Clinton's worst enemies.
If you can believe Schmidt, Starr's office has been working 'round the clock to write The Lewinsky Report which will include a potpourri of testimony from a freak show of witnesses Starr has paraded in front of his Washington Grand Jury for the past three months. The Tripp Tapes seem to figure prominently in his "evidence" but the only evidence they will provide is that Monica and Linda were both good liars, and as many "Barstool Girls" often are, and were more interested in impressing each other with who they bedded than with truth.
Starr seems to think that the tapes, plus testimony from a toad like Tripp and linked to the so-called gifts exchanged between Bill Clinton and Ms. Lewinsky -- will prove to Congress that Mr. Clinton had a motive to lie and to ask Ms. Lewinsky to lie either directly or through aides and friends like Vernon Jordan and others. But no one cares.
Starr also thinks that White House logs and phone records will "prove" that Monica Lewinsky was "doing" the President and therefore even more reason for Mr. Clinton to suborn perjury. But Starr is turkeybrain-stupid if he thinks that entries into the White House to perhaps see her other friends will come close to "proving" that Monica was there to party. Sure, some of the things Monica told Linda must be true, but like all disturbed people, sad little girls like Lewinsky and Tripp always couch their little white lies in sumptuous cushions of truth. That makes them believable. Just ask Newt Gingrich who uses the same cushion all the time.
The Post seems to think that Lewinsky is waiting for a ruling on her immunity deal with Starr which Starr pulled back at the last minute, leaving them flat. But the chances that the judge will rule in Lewinsky's favor are slim. Starr, talked about the agreement, but never orally approved it and certainly never signed it either. If Judge Holloway does not grant immunity for Lewinsky, who has said she did not have sexual relations with the President and also said she did, it is still doubtful whether she'll appear before the Grand Jury without a protracted fight which could include an executive privilege defense.
Starr's office, or people he leaks things to, told the Post that the Whitewater affair report might try to show that two separate allegations of perjury against the President demonstrate the truth of those charges. But American Politics Journal knows that sources of these allegations and the sources are about as reliable as Judas.
Who are they? Noneother than David Hale -- paid henchman of the ultra right and rumored beneficiary of Scaife money diverted from Scaife-controlled charitable trusts to the "Arkansas Project" - a cute name for a bunco/extortion racket run by a couple of bait shop denizens out of Little Rock. The second source? Separated at birth from Mr. Clean, and now dead as a doornail, James McDougal who told a grand jury (in order to cop a plea) that Clinton knew about the phoney loans from McDougal's bank.
A third possible source - Jim Guy Tucker - convicted felon and ex-governor of Arkansas, a reputation sure to impress the three-judge panel, has also agreed to cooperate with Malibu Ken. Birds of a feather, we say. Tucker too, will be looking for special treatment that only a devil like Starr can give away in exchange for people testifying the way he dictates.
Starr's office is trying to sell the line that they must either indict someone or send a report to Congress. Of course that is balderdash, and a stalking horse for sending the report itself inasmuch as they having absolutely no one to indict and nothing to indict them for.
If you can believe the Post, Starr's people say that he should say nothing unless he is prepared to indict or to send the report. The truth is that Starr should say nothing period because he has no evidence upon which to base an indictment. If he can't indict anyone -- much less the president -- then what is he doing telling Congress that he has evidence of impeachable offenses?
The game here is to pretend there is a difference, and that the standard for indictment is somehow greater than the standard to impeach a sitting president with a 70 + point approval rating. And what will Ken Starr say? That the President should be impeached because there's a possibility that he might have tried to get his mistresses to lie about his sex life in order to save his wife and daughter embarrassment? Is that what this world is coming to?
We think it is, and we think that' s exactly what Malibu Ken will attempt.
While Starr pretends that the Lewinsky matter is only one arm of his ridiculous investigation, it is, in reality , the only arm and the only way Starr thinks he can even make his already laughable "report" to a Congress lead by a jowl-foaming "Get Clinton" group chairing or members of some House committees key to starting the impeachment process. While Starr's masturbatory reflections over his memories of Jack Webb on the brilliance of the television show "Dragnet" -- which is a lie in itself -- are cute, only Ken Starr knows what Ken Starr has, and that, we surmise, is nothing.
Starr also thinks he can characterize payments by private sector business to Webster Hubbell, an old friend and colleague of both Clintons, as "Hush Money." This makes us giggle. Everyone knows that friends in trouble in high places often get offers of money from political connections in order to help them make transitions. The old boys network is still alive and well in Washington, but that doesn't mean every nickel obtained for such allies is even remotely a quid pro quo for a zipped lip.
Starr is unrelenting toward Hubbell and has already sent him to prison for bilking his partners out of megabucks. Starr wanted to re-indict him for other trespasses in order to increase the pressure to "sing." The problem for Hubbell is that he is an admitted and convicted felon. Even though he likely has nothing Starr wants to hear, he is under a great deal of pressure to make something up if need be and thereby avoid prison. That's how we read it, and that's how a panel of judges or a sensible congressperson will see it as well. The Post says Starr must indict Hubbell by May 7, only three weeks from now inasmuch as the Little Rock Grand Jury expires that day. We think it will never happen., but time will tell.
If Hubbell balks there's always good old Susan McDougal who Starr would love to indict even though the press has lynched him on his stunningly vicious treatment of her.
The bottom line is that Starr has nothing but a few wisps of innuendo, statements form proven liars or felons eager to make a deal, and tapes made by Monica's "pal" Tripp which have about as much credibility as a deli that serves pastrami cold on white bread with mayo and tomato.
Four years and $50 million dollars worth of sand. This is Kenneth Starr's legacy. And that does not include all the money taxpayers will have to cough up to repay Starr's targets for their legal fees. This alone could amount to another $20 to $30 million -- and that's the law. Targets of Independent Prosecutors -- including the President and White House staffers -- can claim all legal bills and be paid from your pocket for this farce in the future.
The Post's Schmidt lists the following floundering investigations in Starr's office. Each appears to have been fruitless:
1. Starr is hoping he can find some scintilla of proof that White House staff and others took documents out of Vince Foster's office after his tragic suicide and that they tried to "limit" searches of his office by law enforcement people, and whether they lied when describing those events under oath. Of course, Starr has already found that Foster committed suicide after spending millions trying to prove Dick Scaife's buddy Chris Ruddy's and Congressman Dan Burton's theory that Bill and Hillary Clinton had Foster murdered.
2. Starr is trying to prove that the White House and the First Lady lied to the GAO about who ordered the firings in the WHite House Travel Office. He is delaying his report on this issue ostensibly because he is searching for some notes about the travel office taken by Vince Foster's lawyer -- and Foster's lawyer says that despite Foster's death -- attorney/client privilege still applies. Of course it does, but Starr is trying to keep this ludicrous witch hunt alive because those fired were mostly loyal Republicans. Would you tell your lawyer secrets now only to have them revealed once you died. Ridiculous, and yet this serpent Starr is wasting your money and the Supreme Court's time trying to overturn a basic constitutional protection.
3. Starr is trying to prove that someone in the Treasury Department leaked information that the Clintons were being named as witnesses in the Madison Guaranty Savings and Loan matter.
4. Starr would love to prove that Hillary Clinton left those errant records, found magically by a staffer on a White House table. Good Luck Ken.
5. The White House got hundreds of FBI files on Republican appointees which the White House agrees was an invasion of privacy. Starr would love to prove that the Clintons ordered the files. But they didn't, and Starr has nothing on that matter either. The files were requested by over-zealous partisans on the staff who should pay the price for their own reckless action.
Now that Ken Starr has generally called Ms. Schmidt a liar, things are bound to pop at the Washington Post. Look for them to stick by their story, but not to name the source, which we believe is either the deGenovas , Rod Serling. or Judy Garland.
- The Editors
The Second Installment of Pundit Pap -- Meet the Press & This Week will appear tomorrow.
 Provided by Hot Bot | Searchfor |
", 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."
- Eliot Janeway ,1991 New York
From an Introduction to JK's essay and speech, "Washington - The New American Babylon"
Copyright©AMERICAN POLITICS JOURNAL INC 1996-1998 Reader Services Post Office Box 0409, Navesink, NJ 07716 FAX: 908.872.7604
NEED HELP? E-MAIL: reader@americanpolitics.com
