FEATURE
Pundit Pap
for Sunday April 19th 1998
Part 2 of 2
NEW YORK -- Tuesday, April 21, 1998 --
This Week
This Week began with Cokie Roberts making the assertion that "Kenneth Starr is far from over" during the opening teaser; Jackie Judd's piece on Starr began with the startling announcement that he "had reached a sensitive stage" in his investigation.
Stop the presses!! ABC scoops the competition!!! "Sensitive stage!!!"
What is this -- about the 25th "sensitive stage" that Starr's investigation has reached?? It seems that every time the poor fellow wants attention, someone in the press announces that his investigation has reached a "crucial" or "sensitive stage."
Okay -- made Ken has become "sensitive" to the fact that the only way to keep this so-called investigation political is to drag it out for his long as he can! We are willing to concede that much.
The first segment, featuring a debate over whether the Secret Service should testify in Whateveritisgate, featured Oklahoma Governor Frank Keating (pro testimony) squaring off against former Acting Solicitor General Walter Dellinger. Not exciting in the least. The two quotes that sum it up:
Keating: "This is a rule-of-law law enforcement issue. And if these individuals observe a criminal act, or what they perceive to be a criminal act, or if they’re called upon by a grand jury or a lawfully appointed independent counsel -- or a US attorney -- to testify, they should testify."
Dellinger: "Secret Service agents are obliged to obey the law. The issue is what the law is. And like attorneys, who are officers of the court and obliged to obey the law, there are some privileges you must keep.... It’s a national interest, because an assault on the president has profound national and domestic consequences."
This Week scored a minor coup of sorts by managing to get the first interview with Linda trip's attorney Anthony Zaccagnini. While the two segments, totalling a good half-hour of primo pap did prove both interesting and informative, Zaccagnini lacks the dynamic blaster of Monica Lewinsky's attorney William Ginsburg, but comes across as far less a shady dealer and political operator than, say, Donovan Campbell or John Whitehead. Zaccagnini was pretty effective in establishing the boundaries of the interview from the get-go:
"Because of the law in Maryland and because of the possible investigation in Maryland, we are, quite frankly, not going to acknowledge or even discuss any alleged taping activity by Linda. It's not in her best interest."
Note the words "alleged taping activity by Linda." Hmmm... he's not acknowledging activity by Linda... could he be implying someone else was substantially behind the taping, maybe Kenneth Starr? Ha, ha, haha, ha...
Cokie: "But there is one tape that was approved by the Justice Department, correct?"
Zaccagnini: "That is correct."
He is acknowledging "taping activity" -- just not by Linda!
Cokie then reviewed a chronology of events:
January 13: Tripp/Lewinsky "sting" tape
January 14: "Talking points" document
January 16 Noon: FBI stings Lewinsky
January 16 7 PM: Tripp meets Paula Jones' lawyers
January 17: Clinton deposition
There was a little bit of back and forth between Cokie and Zaccagnini about this sequence of events being the crux of Starr's obstruction-of-justice case. Zaccagnini then commented:
"Ms. Tripp's involvement with the investigation is, it really starts with her meeting Monica Lewinsky. There was a long period of time when Monica and Linda were, quite frankly, friends. They had a lot in common. They both used to work at the White House. People tend to seek out people that they have common experiences with. Linda worked at the Pentagon. Monica worked at the Pentagon. They both knew that they both worked at the White House."
Zaccagnini, like Linda Tripp, is trying to exploit a "friendship" between Linda and Monica. Well, if that is the case, why was Linda so eager to tape her "friend?" Something stinks to high Heaven here -- even more so than Stuart Taylor!
A little later from Zaccagnini: "But at no time did Linda ever attempt to entrap Monica to divulge the nature of her relationship with the President of the United States. That simply did not happen."
Then why the heck was Linda Tripp taping Monica in the first place? For party tapes? Maybe a female "Jerky Boys" CD? I don't think so!
"She told her information that just was simply unbearable. She put her in a position where she had to make two choices -- to tell the truth or to tell a lie. And Linda has chosen to tell the truth."
Come on, Zaccagnini, who do you think you're fooling? Are you saying that Linda was completely honest with Monica at all times on the tapes? That she was honest with Monica about being her friend? That Linda would surreptitiously tape a person she considered a "friend," then turn around and use the tapes as a stepping stone to a book deal? Unbelievable!
Later: "Couple that with the fact that she knew that once her name had been identified in an article in Newsweek identifying her as a contemporaneous corroborating witness with the Kathleen Willey incident, she knew that she was going to be subpoenaed by the Paula Jones attorneys. In fact, they contacted her and indicated to her that they were going to subpoena her to testify. Thus, Linda had two options -- to either lie or tell the truth."
Really? Well, couple THAT with the fact that Linda Tripp and Kenneth Starr reportedly met before Linda started taping Monica, and it doesn't take a genius to figure out that Linda probably knew she would be testifying before that grand jury well before she started taping Monica! Now, we know Zaccagnini is just doing his job, and we know he has to put the best possible spin on the story for Linda's sake, but he's not fooling anyone.
George Will's first question warmed the hearts of conspiracy lovers nationwide: "On the 14th, Monica Lewinsky made as many as 30 calls to your client, most or all of them from pay telephones. That sounds like the behavior of someone who -- Ms Lewinsky in this case -- believed she was under surveillance. Do you think she was?"
Zaccagnini: "I have no information on that. And if I did, I really wouldn't disclose it. It would be unfair to the grand jury process."
Not only that, it would make your client look bad!!
Another question from Will, who for the first time in a while looked as if he were not suffering from a migraine: "Ms. Lewinsky, who you say was really pursuing your client, in was not, by all reports, a gifted writer. And it's even said that your client helped her write love letters to the President. Is this true?"
Hey -- if it is, maybe she helped her old pal Willie write all that "fan mail" to the Oval Office looking for a job!
Will fired off another zinger: "Does your client rule out the possibility -- and on the basis of what, if you can tell us -- that Monica Lewinsky's delusional, making this up?"
Zaccagnini: "Absolutely not!"
Will: "Why?"
Zaccagnini: "I don't think -- well -- I think that, for all of the -- [he looked a hair unnerved] you have to take the relationship in its entirety, and I mean Linda's relationship with Monica. The methods at which these issues were discussed, the times at which they were discussed, the substance of the discussions—there is such a high degree of instant corroboration and availability to corroborate these discussions that you just couldn't make it up."
Oh, come on! Are you saying the people who can corroborate these private conversations? And are you saying it would be impossible for Monica to pull the wool over Linda's eyes? Again, are you saying that every word spoken by a Linda and Monica on the tapes is the 100 percent absolute truth?
On the question of talking points Zaccagnini told George that he did not believe Monica wrote them; Cokie's follow-up is worth repeating: "I want to come back to the talking points one more time, because there have been allegations by people, other people involved in this case, that Linda Tripp herself wrote the talking points and that they came off of her computer."
Zaccagnini: "Absolutely not. It did not happen."
hey -- maybe they were emailed by George Conway III or Lucianne Goldberg then!
After the break, the issue of Linda Tripp's arrest and falsification of security clearance application came up.
Zaccagnini: "I would entirely disagree that she falsely responded to that question. You have to take her response to that question in total context to what she knew at the time. The judge instructed her to treat this matter as if it had never happened."
You forgot something, Zaccagnini: the judge or only instructed her after she ASKED if it was okay to do so! It's on the public record!
Zaccagnini: "Linda Tripp, in her own mind, and in my mind, did not falsely respond to that question."
We are sure that in her own mind there are a lot of actions she has committed that she can "justify."
Zaccagnini: "It's very important to remember a New Jersey police officer has already come out and said that she was the subject of a very bad prank. Because she had such an excellent reputation in her community as a goodie two-shoes, she was the perfect pratfall for this prank. They put some jewelry that they had stolen from somebody else—or at least taken from somebody else—in her purse."
Sam: "Some friends of hers?"
Zaccagnini: "Some friends of hers."
Does anyone else here find it weird that Linda has such a penchant for finding friends that get her into such trouble?
Another one from Sam: "Now, you also read in the public prints that your client is obsessed with marital infidelity..." [Tripp was also reputed to be behind rumors that George Bush had a mistress]
Zaccagnini: "Oh, I think that's tantamount to psychobabble, quite frankly."
... which is about the only answer he should give considering of this and many other questions that Linda's behavior raises!
Back to Willey - Zaccagnini: "The recitation of facts, as exhibited by Linda Tripp and by Kathleen Willey, remain very much the same. Linda's interpretation of what Kathleen Willey told her, obviously, may be a little bit different than what Kathleen Willey perceives to be true now."
In other words, there are so many stories here, so many "interpretations," that the issue becomes so muddied as to be irrelevant. Not good news for right-wing Clinton haters.
A little later, George asked "Does perhaps your client have some kind of political animus against the President?"
Zaccagnini: "Absolutely not."
Sorry -- this does not jibe with reports that Linda Tripp has had little in the way of kind words to say about Bill Clinton, and was in fact regularly bad-mouthing him.
Cokie returned to the chronology she brought up during the first segment of the interview: "After that famous day where the FBI met with Monica Lewinsky, then Linda Tripp went to the Jones' lawyers. Is she colluding?"
Zaccagnini [with our analysis]: "Absolutely not."
[We think she is]
"Here is exactly what happened: Paula Jones' attorneys contacted Linda and indicated to her that they wanted to take her deposition testimony."
[How did they know in advance it would be so valuable? Ken Starr or one of his pals?]
"Linda did not want to be subjected to deposition testimony. So she, through her lawyer at that time, arranged to be interviewed by the Paula Jones' lawyers. This is a common trial tactic. Why subject your client to deposition testimony when you can get the requesting party to merely interview her?"
[Because it looks worse for the President - and going through the "agony" of taping a friend and then (sob!) having to give a deposition and hour after hour of grueling testimony before a Grand Jury makes a helluva riveting story if you are looking for a book deal!]
"The timing, obviously, looked suspect. It was not suspect. It was just bad timing."
[We don't believe it]
"Linda did not control when the President's deposition was going to be taken."
[She just had material influence over it]
"Obviously, if Linda had any information relevant to the Paula Jones' attorneys, they -- Paula Jones' attorneys -- wanted to know about it before they took the President's deposition."
[They knew how embarrassing it would be]
"There was absolutely no coordinated effort there."
[We don't believe this either -- unless maybe Linda has you bamboozled]
"Linda did not insert herself into the litigation process. She tried to avoid it."
[Until she realized that she could finally make some money on a big book deal]
There was some small talk about whether Linda would be fired from her Pentagon job -- Zaccagnini thinks so, and hinted that Linda would make a stink about it if she were.
We were left with the distinct impression that Zaccagnini is stuck in the same situation as Iraqi foreign minister Tariq Aziz -- an earnest, hard-working, tough-negotiating, reliable guy trapped in the unenviable position of working for somebody who is completely unbelievable.
The roundtable was so unspectacular as not to even merit comment.
-- 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