Starr Drops a Bomb on the Supreme Court & Monica Secures Serious Counsel
"Can you say 'Impeach,' kids?
Sure you can!" A beautiful
day in the Starr neighborhood
-- or is it? 
WEDNESDAY, JUNE 3rd 1998 -- New York (APJP) -- For the first time, Ken Starr -- Malibu-stricken, Scaife-dependent prosecutor -- mentioned in writing that he may send the Congress an impeachment referral against the President.
"We will be blunt," the Mr. Rogers-like Starr wrote in his pleadings. "The nation has a compelling interest that this criminal investigation of the President of the United States conclude as quickly as possible that indictments be brought, possible reports for impeachment proceedings issued, and non-prosecution decisions announced. This Court's immediate review would powerfully serve that vital goal."
Blunt?
That's an understatement!
Starr, who has been cautious about using the "I" word in pleadings -- or even during his daily driveway "news conferences" -- has now alerted the Supreme Court and the world that he is thinking about impeachment in at least a more serious way.
Or is he?
It may be that Starr is engaging in the age-old game of "Who'll Blink First?" by mentioning impeachment to shake up the loyal troops at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue and hoping for at least a minor insurrection. Starr knows his so-called "victory" on "executive" privilege which allows him to question White House advisor Blumenthal is a tempest in a tea pot. Blumenthal will have nothing much to say and certainly won't, and is in no position to answer Starr's questions surrounding Monica Lewinsky.
So Bruce Lindsey, attorney to President Clinton, becomes the primary subject of Starr's wrath as the White House refuses to surrender its claim of attorney-client privilege and blocks the independent witch-hunter from getting Lindsey before a grand jury. Starr seems to think that the President is not entitled to that which is guaranteed every citizen in this nation: the right to talk with counsel without fear that these discussion will be revealed.
Or does he?
Of course, Starr knows that neither Lindsey or Blumenthal are apt to tattle on Bill Clinton -- so what's his game? We think not much more than to stir the pot and see what boils up.
Meanwhile, taxpayers continue to foot the bill, now approaching $100 million, for legal fees and overhead on both sides.
Starr's mention of impeachment was no accident. It was designed to shake up the White House even though Starr knows that he cannot make such a recommendation to Congress for many months, if at all, and has little to go forward on save an alleged "pact" between the President and Monica L. not to kiss and tell, if at all true.
Some big lie. Some big subornation of perjury.
Starr seeks to paint the President as stalling the inevitable, but it's obvious that the White House seeks, in its appeals and other actions, to protect the office of the presidency more than the president himself. Why else would it engage in activity it knows will subject it to critical scrutiny by the already rabid press -- which used to regularly defend itself against charges it was an "arm" of the liberals, and now presents itself as the very foundation of the ultra-right wing?
It will be many months before Starr can complete his report. He must decide whether he should prosecute Monica Lewinsky for lying under oath when she claimed she had no sexual relationship with the President and then told wired bimbo Linda Tripp that she did. He will have to argue and win his case for the testimony of Bruce Lindsey, and he must prevail in his quest to get the Secret Service to testify against the very man they are sworn to protect. He will have to weather the hatred, fear and loathing that the American people have come to harbor against him personally and professionally.
Even if he wins these battles, he will be left in the end with nothing much more than Linda Tripp -- a woman scorned, a lonely pitiful Judas who seeks to make millions on lurid tales and half-truths. After all, Linda is Ken's girl. He wired her, he set up Lewinsky and he stands at Linda's side.
It's probably no coincidence that Monica Lewinsky separated from her loyal, albeit too-outspoken, attorney William Ginsburg. She is frightened as well. Starr has raised the stakes in this macabre game of sexual poker. He and his buddies have engaged, since 1991, in an all-out attack on Bill Clinton and the nation's electoral system. They want the President out of office, or so bloody by the time he does leave that Republicans will have an easy time seeking the Presidency themselves.
What does Starr mean when he presents his case for fast-track Supreme Court review by writing "This Court's immediate review would powerfully serve that vital goal."
What vital goal?
Or better yet, whose goal?
Is it the goal of the American people to prosecute Monica Lewinsky or impeach their President?
We think not.
- The Editors
Search American Politics Provided by Hot Bot |
