Search American Politics
FEATURE
Pundit Pap
for Sunday May 3rd 1998
How Dan Burton's Campaign of Character Assassination Backfired and He Became an Even Bigger Laughingstock Than Ever
NEW YORK -- Tuesday, May 5, 1998 -- We postponed our usual wrapup of the Sunday political chatfests for a day because of the sensational political fallout following revelations that Dan Burton and his cronies doctored tapes of telephone conversations between convicted Whitewater figure Webster Hubbell and relatives and his lawyer.
The pundits had gone into today's interviews thinking it had been a "good week" for Ken Starr, given his indictments of Webster Hubbell, his wife, his accountant and lawyer.
They had been buying into the party line blathered by the usual bunch of hard-right talking heads following the advice of such GOP operatives as Frank Luntz, who has advised Starr's "supporters" to refer to the abusive independent counsel as "Judge Starr."
OUR ADVICE to Democrats and opponents of Starr: whenever the "party on the right," be they a blonde cartileginous pollsterette, columnist for the Weekly Standard or member of the antifeminist Independent (yeah, sure) Women's Forum, uses the words "Judge Starr," remind them that "Mister Starr" is attempting to serve a prosecutorial, not judicial, function, and referring to him as "Judge" Starr in this case is both deceptive and disingenuous.
Now, onto the best pre-Burton-meltdown pap of the weekend:
Fox News Sunday
It wasn't an overall brilliant week for Tony Snow and the usual gang -- Brit Hume was back after a couple of weeks vacation, and we actually missed his temporary "replacement," Weekly Standard's cowlicked Preppie pundit Tucker Carlson. Carlson's a "company man" for sure -- a hard-right apologist to the core -- but he seems to be growing quite quickly into the role of an entertaining conservative TV pundit.
Meanwhile, Hume looks and talks like a man with a black cloud hanging over his head -- as he did even before the tragic and shocking suicide of his son, the immensely talented Sandy Hume, earlier this year -- and his snide attitude rubs us the wrong way. The tremendous temptation to hit the mute button when he opens his yap is almost too much to overcome.
The first guest was none other than Attorney General Janet Reno. The gang at Fox News never turns down a chance to ask a question that puts attacks on the President in the most negative possible light, but Tony overdid a good thing by asking too many questions that he knew darned well AG Reno would not answer, since the subject matter pertained to ongoing investigations being undertaken by the Justice Department.
She refused to answer a question on Charles LaBella allegedly talking to Orrin Hatch and Fred Thompson supporting the appointment of a special prosecutor to look into alleged campaign fund wrongdoing by Democrats.
Tony even followed up with "We've confirmed independently that he did say that."
Janet: "I don't act based on what somebody else says to somebody else."
Later on Sunday, LaBella himself denied that he had said that he supports appointment of a special prosecutor. What does that say about Fox News's sources? Better luck next time, Tony -- but you're not the architect of Fox's news department. Does anyone else suppose Hume might be to blame?
Tony also asked a question that's become a favorite "theme" spin question of the right: what she has to say about "over 90 people pleading the 5th or fleeing the country" during the House Government Reform & Oversight Committee investigation into campaign finance abuse.
We must have heard that slanted litany a dozen times on Sunday.
Of course, they never mention HGROC Chaiman Dan Burton's patently abusive subpoenas and refusal to probe money laundering and criminality involving major GOP fundraisers including Grover Norquist and Haley Barbour -- if he had, you can bet those two crooks would've plead the fifth about 90 times each!
And how often are we reminded of Burton's own private "AsiaGate" -- shaking down at least one Asian lobbyist for money? Talk about the pot calling the kettle black!
Reno's reply: they try to pursue the specific and credible evidence, not rumors in the press, and pleading the fifth does not constitute specific and credible evidence.
Tony followed up with the other bit of spin being applied by conservative pundits this week: that "Louis Freeh said he'd never seen anything like this except in mob cases."
Reno's reply: "You said it sets a tone" but these decisions are made based on evidence, not tone.
A little later, Reno stated that she has not "seen any information that would justify [the] action" of removing Kenneth Starr.
In other words, he has done nothing so egregious that she could fire him without raising a political firestorm, and besides, there's nothing like giving Starr enough rope with which to hang himself.
The subject turned only briefly to youth violence in America, despite having been touted as a major topic which would be discussed with Reno. She did state that while youth crime had dropped, it remained a very serious issue, especially in light of recent headline-making incidents in rural areas. She added that she was gratified at bipartisan action on the national and local level to punish violent offenders, establish intervention programs for first offenders, and develop other programs to combat the problem of youth violence.
Tony asked whether Webster Hubbell ever approached her for help after he left the Justice Department. Her answer was no, then she drew a laugh from Tony when she mentioned that somebody called her "as if looking for a [job] reference" after Hubbell had left!
His final question: "How are you feeling?"
Reno's one word response: "Fine." Her mild Parkinson's Disease certainly isn't cutting into her firm, feisty style with the press, and both she and Tony were more than cordial during her segment.
Tony opened the the second segment featuring Senate Judiciary Committee chairman Orrin Hatch (R-UT) saying "Independent counsel Ken Starr had his best week in months, but critics say Starr is a bully who picks on little people for political reasons."
By Sunday afternoon, Starr's so-called "best week" would be forgotten thanks to Dan Burton.
Hatch used the same recycled criticisms of Clinton that he's been using for the last couple months, emboldened only slightly by the recent wave of GOP "sic-em-ism."
Brit Hume led off the questioning by asking Hatch about Charles LaBella's allegedly comments that an independent counsel should be named to look into Democratic campaign finance abuse.
Hatch: " We'd definitely had a hard hitting program in the office, where we met with Mr. LaBella and with the Deputy Attorney General. I have to say, it was a very interesting meeting and I'm satisfied that they're doing what really needs to be done. Now, with regard to the Independent Counsel, I don't know where they got that, but The New York Times got it mostly right."
Too bad they got Mr. LaBella's alleged comments wrong. But given The Times' recent penchant for Clinton-bashing and not quite getting the facts straight, we're not surprised.
In response to Brit's question of what exactly LaBella said: "Let me not talk about what those private comments were."
Most of the rest of the questioning, including Mara Liasson's question about "if the New York Times story is true, should she follow the recommendation" was mooted by the revelation that LaBella said no such thing.
Orrin has maintained a generally "soft-spoken" tone in his strong criticisms of Clinton, but eagerly jumped on the soap box alleging some sort of wrongdoing by Clinton, saying "Ken Starr is doing his job even though there has been every obfuscation, every slowdown, every stonewall including the frivolous motions, frivolous appeals, frivolous assertions of executive privilege, frivolous assertions of attorney-client privilege."
Hatch rattled off the same litany minutes later in response to a question by Juan Williams, following up with the words "Ken Starr is doing a heck of a job."
That is, if you consider a forty million-plus fishing expedition "a heck of a job."
These same points would be made by other pols and pundits throughout the weekend -- at least one other commentator did his own litany of "frivolties" -- a laundry list which scores little headway for their argument in light of the abusive tactics from Starr's office and the basic common sense to "keep your mouth shut" when you are under legal attack.
Hatch predicts that Reno will appoint an independent counsel to look into allegations of campaign finance wrongdoing. He also made an assertion he is made on previous occasions: "she has a cadre of White House-appointed political operatives around her who have been advising her. She ought to pay more attention to the career prosecutors and to a former judge, prosecutor, U.S. attorney, and top attorney Louis Freeh."
Of course, not a word about the fact that Reno has in fact appointed special prosecutors on numerous occasions, a fact that has infuriated many Democrats and members of the Clinton Administration, some of whom have been venomous in their private assessment of Reno's "loyalty" to the President.
Hatch avoided direct attacks on Clinton, concentrating his attacks on the President's lawyers, staff, "spinmeisters" and even Susan McDougal. But we all know it's easier to go after a number of small targets than the big kahuna.
Even in response to the final question, about whether he agreed we have Newt Gingrich's severe castigation about the President, Hatch replied by decrying what he saw as a lack of "bipartisanship" in looking into the various allegations of some kind of wrongdoing against the President.
"This week, partisan attacks approached thermonuclear levels!" The most fun to be had on Fox News Sunday this week was the last guest segment featuring Congressmen Bob Barr (R-Twilight Zone, grinning like an idiot) and Barney Frank (D-MA, looking pretty dour).
Tony's first question was for Frank, concerning why Congress doesn't seem to be such a happy place this session.
Barney's reply: "I don't think that's necessarily true. The problem is a there was a focus on the fairly small percentage of issues that get inflated in partisanship. We still spend most of our time working cooperatively.... People like to talk like that is going to be 'The Jerry Springer Show' gone berserk.... I think you have one particular problem. You have a great frustration with Bill Clinton's political and economic success. You have people who really dislike him intensely. You have a wing of the Republican Party that the seems to me to obsess about him. And from their standpoint he is 'getting away with it'. He is, in fact, popular."
Tony: "Are you obsessed with Bill Clinton?"
Barr: " No, what I'm obsessed with is the Constitution and holding all leaders accountable, Tony."
Horse hockey -- if he were obsessed with accountability, he'd be the first one raising hell about Dan Burton's abuses. He serves on the HGROC, but instead of being obsessed with accountability he wastes Louis Freeh's and America's time and money asking Freeh questions implying that former welfare recipients who have gotten off the dole and work in support jobs for the Executive branch of the federal government "constitute" some kind of security risk.
Oh... so THAT'S what he means about being obsessed with the "constitution."
We think he's obsessed with having been declared the least effective member of Congress in the March edition of Spy magazine -- a satirical periodical that has not exactly been charitable to the Democrats in recent years.
Barr then went into his predictable litany of "stonewalling" and "no access" charges he's gone over a thousand times before.
Brit Hume turned to Frank with a question: "If it was OK with the Clinton Justice Department for witnesses in the campaign finance investigation to be immunized, why isn't it OK with the Democrats on Capitol Hill?"
Frank: "One, the Justice Department didn't advocate this, they said that they had no objection. And the main problem is that Democrats said..."
Brit: "But why would the Democrats object?"
Frank: "Well, I'm trying to answer that question. May I? Dan Burton, the chairman of that committee, is incompetent, out of control, he is the worst kind of McCarthyite. Dan Burton's tactics have been outrageous..."
Brit: "Well..."
Frank: "...and..."
Brit: "But..."
Frank: "You asked a question. The rules are, I can answer it, or not?"
Brit (sounding huffy): "The rules are you can answer the question, yes."
Frank: "The answer is not distrust, but dislike of the way that Dan Burton has running that committee."
Brit: "But how does your dislike of the chairman translate into a position against the committee getting evidence?"
Frank: "Because the evidence will be controlled by the chairman, and the chairman will control to process of getting the evidence..."
Brit: "Not if it's taken in public..."
Frank: "Excuse me, excuse me, excuse me. What's the rule here? If you ask a question, and don't let me give an answer..."
Tony (interjecting): "We're trying to be..."
Frank: "I'm trying to give the answer! [cut to shot of Tony looking pretty amused] The answer has to do with Dan Burton. It's specific. We believe that Dan Burton is a disgrace! He first of all has acknowledged that he is 'out to get the President!' That is not the basis on which you do an objective investigation. Secondly, he has violated people's rights, he has been abusive, he has leaked information. And yes -- if you are talking about a different chairman and different committee you might have a different view. It has to do with a complete distrust and, I think, the incompetence of Dan Burton."
Barr went into an argument that there are "fundamental principles" and "the public has a right to know." He also made the ridiculous assertion that there was some sort of "threat to national security" -- no doubt implying that some of the foreign businesspeople who have been accused of making illegal campaign contributions are somehow tied to be dreaded International Communist Conspiracy.
Of course, Barr still doesn't get the fact that most of these "conspirators" are too busy reading Investor's Business Daily, The Asian Wall Street Journal, and their quarterly mutual funds statements to have any time left to leaf thorugh Chairman Mao's little red book!
Tony followed with a question to Frank asking if the four witnesses who were not granted immunity might have gotten it if there were a different Committee Chairman.
Frank's reply: "It's possible, yes. If we were talking about a different committee, where there had been a pattern of responsible activity, it would be different story. What's happened is the Republicans on that committee, all of them, have basically yielded to Dan Burton the power to act pretty much on his own. What he's done has been very abusive, he's been abusive of individual rights, it's kind of a McCarthyite..."
Tony: "De... detail for us..."
Frank: "Wait a minute. Excuse me. Why is it the rule that Mr. Barr is never interrupted when you asking questions or he's giving answers and I'm always interrupted?"
Tony: " Mr. Frank, I tell you what, if you want to be rude during the interview, you can do it. We're simply trying to get the answers..."
Frank: "Now, I don't think I'm being rude,sir, when I'm trying to give my answer I get three words into it, you probably don't like the way it's going and then you try to cut me off."
Tony: " Please continue. You have the floor."
Actually, Barney, we agree that Tony and Brit should be a little bit more courteous, but look at the flip side -- we think the only reason Tony and Brit won't cut off Bob Barr is because they're too intelligent to debate that wing-nut. They may disagree with you, but at least your ideas are worthy of debate.
Brit, accusing Frank of being repetitive, pressed Frank for examples; Frank brough up Burton's leaking Hubbell's jailhouse conversations and a pattern of Burton harrassing witnesses with repeated subpoenas and demands for multiple appearances to give testimony.
When asked by Tony about the possibility of impeaching the president, Barr replied: "What I've called for is an inquiry of impeachment, which is far short of the impeachment of the president, simply beginning the process."
What Barr isn't saying is that he has been working with ultra-conservative organizations and leaders, including American Spectator editor and goofball impeachment fantasist R. Emmett Tyrrell on a coordinated effort to "get the President." He did go into detail on his crazy assertion of "Communist Chinese" money influencing "national security decisions." And when he talked about stonewalling for a third time, Brit Hume did not interrupt him -- despite the fact that Barr was getting monotonous intoning literally the same tired phrases.
Frank derided Barr's inquiry of impeachment, and praised Henry Hyde for his bipartisanship. Barr muttered something about LaBella that we ignored.
Panel time with Brit, Mara Liasson and Juan Williams: Brit commented on the Hubbell tapes, saying that Hubbell might have "something on the First Lady" and was honoring a "sort of 'omerta,' a Mob code of silence [OK, kids, where have we heard THAT spin already?]"
Revelation of other excerpts from these tapes less than an hour later on another network -- comments by Hubbell that exonerate the First Lady -- would make Hume look like a complete idiot in retrospect.
More from Brit: "I think Burton outright released the tapes."
No he hadn't, Brit -- he released doctored excerpts, then later on Sunday "offered" to make them available in their entirety if it were OK with Hubbell -- and then did it anyway without the permission of Hubbell or his attorney!
Jeez, Tony -- we know Brit's a big cheese over there at Fox News, but isn't there ANYTHING you can do to keep him off your show so he'll stop making a jerk of himself on your otherwise enjoyable program?
Not much later -- Brit: "There seems to be a remedy for all of these problems, and that is for him to tell what he knows. I don't think anybody here believes that he's told all he knows."
Juan: "Wait, wait, wait. The other way to interpret this is he's being squeezed, and asked to lie! And that's what Hubbell's saying! He's being asked to deliver a message. And, in fact, Susan McDougal has said that the same thing."
Brit: "Juan, do you believe that?"
Juan: "Do I believe that Ken Starr is squeezing Webster Hubbell? YES!"
We were laughing out loud at Hume by this point.
Talk soon turned to the President's news conference. There's no better way to try to make the President look bad by bringing up the issue of Clinton saying a few month back that the "truth" about his current troubles would come out eventually, and his refusing (rightly, we feel) to discuss these issues at his news conference. Of course, none of the assembled pundits would talk about how foolish certain members of the press looked as they pelted Clinton with slanted questions and looked like tabloid sensationalists.
One last exchange -- Brit: "Newt Gingrich says things that virtually every journalist in this town, and I think even including you, Juan, believess to be true, which is that the White House is covering up and stonewalling, and your view is that it hurts the credibility of the Republicans. It is just remarkable."
Juan: "When they go overboard, when they go over and use that kind of language."
Brit: "You mean stonewalling, coverup?"
Juan: "You know the language I'm talking about!"
This Week
This Week introduced a new show logo with Sunday's program -- since the departure of David Brinkley, they've tried tweaking the name of the program (This Week with Sam Donaldson & Cokie Roberts, This Week with Sam & Cokie, This Week) and the title/intro segment.
Instead, they should concentrate on replacing the co-hosts. Cokie is a lazy, unenlightening insider who lacks the drive for penetrating journalism. Sam is busy making a monkey's patootie of himself not only on the show but with the sort of "hard-hitting" questions he asked at President Clinton's news conference last week, questions calculated to embarrass the President that instead made Donaldson look the fool he is.
These two has-beens should be fired.
And, truth be told, other than the appearance of Webster Hubbell's attorney John Nields on the program, there's hardly anything worth reporting on.
"The pursuit of President Clinton got back on track," said Sam Donaldson after the opening credits rolled. This is the sort of wording that shows exactly where Sam's loyalties lie -- in implying that he and ABC News buy into allegations of wrongdoing without full disclosure of the facts; that the President is to be "pursued" for every half-baked rumor or bit of innuendo that ends up on the wire services.
The interview with Webster Hubbell's attorney John Nields at least temporarily derailed Sam's pursuit of attacking the President -- not to mention generated national headlines.
Nields outclassed every attorney we've seen on the Sunday morning pundit circuit by a very wide margin -- he was forceful in his position, straightforward and no-nonsense in his presentation of facts, and firm in taking command of the proceedings.
Cokie: "Mr. Nields, we just heard that tape that we've heard over and over again in the last few days, Mr. Hubbell saying 'I guess I have to roll over again.' That implies that he's rolled over before and he's taking of all the White House."
Nields: "No. It doesn't imply that. These tapes have all been edited so as to change their meanings. These are tapes that have confidential conversations between husband and wife, between client and lawyer. They are covered by the Privacy Act. They are not supposed to be the public domain. And I am not going to interpret conversations that I wasn't a part of that have been inappropriately changed by omission and that should not be out in the public domain. The exception to that is, because it has been so badly interpreted, I will answer questions about the one conversation that quotes my words."
Nields sounded as if he is ready to prepare a case of some sort against Dan Burton himself. Having stated that the priviledged nature of the tapes may mean that Burton violated the Privacy Act, Nields then set out point by point to show how Burton misused the tapes to embarrass Hubbell and the First Lady.
Cokie: "Dan Burton has said that if you are accusing these tapes of being edited, that he's happy to put all the tapes if you agree to that."
Nields: "Let me give you a simple example of while I'm talking about. The tape in which I am involved omits the following at the beginning of it, spoken by me. It omits me saying that it is 'an attorney/client privileged conversation; nobody should listen any further.' "
Sam quoted, word for word, a little bit of one of the tapes with Nields saying "I very much want you, if this ever should be challenged, to be able to say that this time you looked at the return and compared a list that we'll compare with the numbers on the return to make --- sure it's right. We're to do this time, out what he didn't do last time.
"[Hubbell] Which I should have done the last time."
Nields' reply to Sam: "NO, it's not! He says 'Which I should have done the last time, which is read the return before it get sent in!' It was filed while he was in jail, and he never read it!"
Sam then quoted the next example: "[Nields] 'There is some chance that the day after election day, they will make a move that moots everything and I don't want to discourage it.' Now, Mr. Nields, that is being interpreted as saying there might be a hardening move on the of President Clinton, and if you do something to upset that Apple card, it wouldn't be a good thing."
Nields: "That has absolutely nothing to do a pardon.... [but] immunity granted by the Independent Counsel, which I was told we would get right after the election. And we did!"
To our surprise, George Will asked a very good question: "Your client said he will not tell a lie about the President. He must have a very specific lie in mind that Ken Starr, according to your client, wants to tell. What is it?"
Nields: "That is a very good question! Because four years after the beginning of this investigation, I do not know what crime it is, having to do with Whitewater, that is even being investigated! Four years after this is started! I believe that no one in this room does. I do not know what it is that they think Hillary Clinton did, or what they think Webb Hubbell knows about. I do not know."
We think the lie is about the First Lady: that Starr would suborn perjury from anyone -- Hubbell, Susan McDougal, anyone -- to "prove" a pattern of overbilling by Mrs. Clinton.
More from Nields: "[Hubbell] is being pressured to say something different then he's already said. He is not someone who refused to cooperate. This isn't Susan McDougal! He sat down with people in the Independent Counsel's office for over 100 hours, and if they are trying to pressure him now, it is not to cooperate, it's because they doesn't like what he said and they want him to say something different. If that is true -- excuse me, this is important -- if that is true, trying to get him to say something different than he's already said, that is a very, very troublesome thing. I have to finish this point: it is a very troublesome thing because if anyone other than the government were to put that kind of pressure on a witness to change the testimony, they would immediately be under investigation for subornation of perjury or obstruction of justice."
Nields methodically shot down every suggestion that Sam made of wrongdoing by Hubbell, including an implication that Hubbell accepted hush money: "I would like to point out that, first of all, after 18 months of investigation, the one thing the independent Counsel has not charged Hubbell with is hush money because there is absolutely no evidence that this was hush money! And no reason to suspicion that it was!"
Sam: "What could he do for the money?"
Nields: "Let me explain because it's been reported so misleadingly in the past. The people that retained him did so already after he left the Justice Department as Associate Attorney General, a very highly placed government official, ever heard of that before? [Ha, ha, haha -- Sam should know better than to think the public hasn't figuerd this out]"
Sam: "Under the law he could not lobby his former associates."
Nields: "Nor did he! Is certainly not unusual in this city for high officials to be put on retainer. That is not unusual."
Sam: "Under law, you can't do anything for the person putting among the retainer."
Nields: "That is not true. There are things he can do and things he can't do... I am not, and my client does not, he said so publicly many times, talk about work he did for his clients..... I don't think it's relevant to any case brought or that will be brought against Webb Hubbell." And when Hubbell agreed to plead guilty, "virtually all of them dropped him like a hot potato."
George Will changed the line of questioning to Castle Grande, and Sam followed up with a comment that the actual criminality may involve phony documents of which Hubbell and the First Lady had knowledge; Nields replied by shrugging his shoulders with a "what am I to say to something this stupid and presumptive" look on his face.
Cokie then preceded her next question by repeating allegations made by Dan Burton that the White House is engaged in a pattern to intimidation, and mentioned the same 90-plus people who have "fled the country or taken the fifth."
She then asked the Stupid Non-Sequitur Question of the Week: Is Hubbell the subject of White House intimidation?
"Not that I know of." Nields almost looked shocked by this stupefying question... especially given that his client has been a target of Burton's own intimidation campaign. The "You've got to be kidding" look on his face told the whole story.
And some of you wonder why we're so tough on This Week. Maybe we should be tougher, especially when the only one acting like a rational journalist on that program was George Will -- a baseball fanatic so far right on certain issues that he sometimes makes Phyllis Schlafly look like a NOW member.
When Cokie mentioned Mrs. Hubbell's job concerns, Nields let her that the words were taken from a redacted tape excerpt. He reiterated that "none of this should have been released, none of it!... I understand that this stuff comes out and everybody in the press starts hyperventilating. It shouldn't be happening. This is very, very wrong."
He also made it clear in no uncertain terms that he and Hubbell are not interested in Dan Burton's "offer" to make the remainder of the tapes public. Now that Burton's effort to embarrass Hubbell and the First Family has been exposed for the failed gambit it is, no amount of spin, back tracking, or "generous offers" can save Burton from looking like a fool.
Sam concluded by asking if Hubbell was indeed guilty of tax fraud. Nields: "This is not true. All of them are innocent. This is a very, very unusual and peculiar charge and it is particularly so in that they have indicted not only my client a second time, but his wife, two tax professionals that she turned to for advice when her husband was in jail, tax professionals were working free of charge out of the goodness of their hearts to help a family in distress.. They had absolutely no motive whatsoever to counsel the Hubbells to do anything contrary to the law."
The succeeding two segments, the first featuring Lanny Davis and Barbara Olson of the "Independent" (not of Scaife funding, honey!) Women's Forum, then the second with Tom DeLay and Arlen Spector (talk about balance), were so dull that we pretty much tuned out...
Until Sam started plugging his "tough" line of questioning during last week's Presidential news conference during the roundtable. What a pompous windbag this once great journalist has become.
Please, ABC. We've said it once and we'll say it again: fire this self-promoting loudmouth has-been along with his shallow sidelick.
But keep George Will.
-- 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