David Corn is Washington editor of The Nation magazine, the oldest political weekly in America. He writes on a host of subjects, including politics, the White House, Congress, and national security.

He has broken stories on Bob Dole, Newt Gingrich, Oliver North, Colin Powell, Richard Gephardt, Hillary Clinton, Rush Limbaugh, Clarence Thomas, Senator Paul Laxalt, Senator Robert Bennett, the Central Intelligence Agency, the Pentagon, and other Washington players.

Corn has contributed articles, including political satire and book reviews, to The Washington Post, The New York Times, The Los Angeles Times, The Philadelphia Inquirer, The Boston Globe, Newsday, HarperÕs, The New Republic, Mother Jones, The Washington Monthly, The Village Voice, The New York Press -- which features his weekly column "Loyal Opposition" -- and many other publications. He also writes for several on-line magazines, including Slate, HotWired, and Salon.

He is the author of Blond Ghost: Ted Shackley and the CIA's Crusades (Simon and Schuster, 1994). The Washington Monthly called Blond Ghost "an amazing compendium of CIA fact and lore." The Washington Post noted that Blond Ghost "deserves a space on that small shelf of worthwhile books about the agency." The New York Times termed it "a scorchingly critical account of an enigmatic figure who for two decades ran some of the agency's most important, and most controversial, covert operations."

Corn was a contributor to Unusual Suspects, an anthology of mystery and crime fiction (Vintage/Black Lizard, 1996). His contribution to the book -- a short story entitled ÒMy MurderÓ -- was nominated for a 1997 Edgar Allan Poe Award by Mystery Writers of America. The story was republished in The Year's 25 Finest Crime and Mystery Stories (Carroll & Graf, 1997).

Corn frequently is a guest on television and radio talk shows. He has been a panelist on CNN's Capital Gang, and he is a regular on C-SPAN. He has appeared on ABC News, CBS Morning News, Fox Television News, Fox New Cable, Crossfire (CNN), Washington Week in Review (PBS), Equal Time (CNBC), Tim Russert (CNBC), Tribune Television, MSNBC, and other shows and networks.

He was a co-host (with Pat Buchanan) of the nationally-syndicated radio show Buchanan and Company. He has appeared often on the syndicated Diane Rehm radio show, and provided commentary to National Public Radio. He is a featured guest on RadioNation, a nationally-syndicated show. He has contributed political commentary to BBC Radio, CBC Radio, Pacifica Radio, Australian National Radio, and has been a guest on scores of call-in radio programs.

Corn, thirty-nine years old, is a Phi Beta Kappa graduate of Brown University. Before joining The Nation, he worked for Ralph Nader's Center for Study of Responsive Law and HarperÕs magazine.

Click here to read more of David Corn's Loyal Opposition.

Monica Mania

"There is no shock value in anything anymore." So muttered a senior Clinton aide to a*New York Times* reporter after Monica Lewinsky jumped into bed with independent counsel Kenneth Starr and the mythical semen-stained dress (Starr's off-white whale?) dramatically reappeared. No shock value? Tell that to the press corps,which responded to Starr's respective deals with Lewsinky and Clinton with the force you'd expect to see if the scoop was that a new --and better--method of sex had been discovered. (Perhaps that's Clinton's escape route!) Sure, all the Monica stuff is news, but the media paroxysm was ridiculous. Is this really more important than the fact that the Japanese economy is heading Titanic-way? Does the HMO debate in Congress--which directly affects millions of Americans on matters of life and health--generate as much media bombast?

Drama sells. Sex sells more. And the news business is about selling. No surprise there. But just because ABC's Sam Donaldson, CBS's Scott Pelley, and CNBC's Chris Matthews are breathless--hey, this means more airtime and better ratings for the Monica newshounds--that does not mean we all have to lunge for the oxygen. Pardon me for not breaking out exclamation points for each new development. If you look toward the horizon, the story remains the same: how can Starr get out of this? Accvording to the best guessing of the moment, Starr may produce a report compiling evidence of what *he* believes are impeachment-worthy illegal acts and then zap it to Congress. As I've noted before, unless Starr takes the improbable course of indicting a sitting president, he will never have to prove his case. He won't have to bring it before a jury. What Congress--and the public, via leaks--will get is Starr's view of the evidence. Given his political baggage and his vendetta-like temperament, how valuable will that be? It will just supply the pundits and anyone else who cares something else over which to argue. Did Starr cook the evidence? Do his legal interpretations hold up? Are his conclusions well- founded? He seems to be moving toward a finale in which he dumps a he said/she said mess on Congress and then leaves it to the legislators and the rest of us to sort it all out. Thanks a lot.

Everyone involved in this political oil spill deserves to be locked up in a room for weeks with Rudy Giuliani. Clinton gave the American people the finger by refusing to say whether he had been subpoenaed by Starr. He's damn fortunate most Americans prefer not being bothered with this sordidness. Starr has chased an alleged crime that many legal experts believe was not truly perjury. Almost everyday on CNN, legal analysts Roger Cossack and Greta van Sustern explain that perjury occurs only when a person lies about a subject that is material to a case. They then note that since the judge in the Paula Jones case determined that the Lewinsky business was not relevant to the case, the statements made by Clinton and Lewinsky about their relationship ultimately were immaterial. Maybe there is the argument that at the time Clinton gave his deposition his interactions with Lewinsky were material; consequently, if he lied *then* he committed perjury at that instant. But this is thin, especially since perjury in civil cases is rarely investigated by prosecutors.

The two star witnesses in the production, Monica Lewinsky and Linda Tripp, are undeserving of sympathy. One joked aout bagging the President. acknowledged her tendency to prevaricate, and was a bizarre tropy colletor. (Did she think she could one day donate that dress to the Clinton presidential library?) The other betrayed and set out to cause a stir. The two are now clawing at each other over the infamous "talking points" memo. Starr must be glad that he is not going to have to put either of them before a jury in a public trial. Of course, if there's no trial, there's no cross- examination--unless this somehow reaches the impeachment stage and hearings occur in which Democratic members of Congress then grill Lewinsky and Tripp. That's too horrid to envision. But if Starr goes on to write a report for Congress, he will have at his disposal unchallenged testimony from Lewinsky and Tripp. How convenient for him.

Tripp's performance on the courthouse steps last week was sad. She indeed has been through the ringer. But how could she say "I'm an average American who found herself in a situation not of her own making.... never, ever asked to be placed in this position"? Yes, she never asked to be put in a spot where she would have to spend days before a grand jury and be beseiged by television camera crews. But come on. As Tripp's friend, Lucianne Goldberg, says, Tripp had been eager to write a tell-all book about the reprobates of the Clinton White House. At first Goldberg told her she didn't think Tripp had the goods for such a book. Then, when Tripp heard from Lewinsky that Lewinsky was having an affair with someone in the White House, she called Goldberg to ask if this could help Tripp win a book deal. Tripp was looking for dirt. And when Lewinsky shared withher the name of that someone, Tripp again raised the book idea with Goldberg, who now was more interested in snagging Lewinsky as an author.

Unable to obtain a book contract, Tripp went on to secretly tape her friend. Next, someone aware of the Lewinsky-Clinton relationship (whatever it was) tipped off the lawyers for Paula Jones. That led to all the legal difficulties for Clinton and Lewinsky. Jonah Goldberg, Lucianne's son, told Steven Brill that Tripp was the tipster. His mom said she wasn't sure but added that it "made sense" that Tripp had informed the Jones attorneys.

Tripp was a mixer. She snooped around. She was looking to make a buck. She made this happen. It's too bad she cannot live with that reality. But who would want to claim responsibility for cooking up this mega-mudpie?

One reason why the media loves this story is that there is so much to parse. Did Clinton make the right decision in agreeing to provide testimony to Starr? (Well, Tim, he did not have much choice. Well, Bernie, it's not what I'd advise. Well, Ted, it's a risky strategy.) Was the White House staff split on what Clinton should do? Did Starr cut a bad deal with Lewinsky because he's worried about the two investigations investigating his investigation? Is Clinton walking into a perjury trap? Are poll-watching Republicans too cowardly to deal with the impeachment of popular president? (The day his lawyers announced Clinton would Q&A with Starr, the President's aproval rating was four points higher than it was three weeks earlier.) What does it mean that Starr's two lead witnesses disagree about the talking points? Doesn't that suggest one is a liar? What sort of grand jury witness will Lewinsky make? Will public attitudes change if there emerges concrete proof indicating Clintonlied? Will this affect the coming elections? If the dress bears his mark, should Clinton address the nation and explain the presence of the executive ejaculate? And how long does it take to test a DNA sample? You have a whole month's worth of topics for all those political talk shows. Just in time for August, when the news cycle dips, and so do ratings. So let it rip: All Monica, all the time.

My suggestion: relax. It's summer, and there is other political news to consider. The House, for example, has been debating a campaign finance reform measure that Speaker Newt Gingrich and his muscle-men have been trying to kill. Need a break from Monicagate, try to follow that story--if you can find any coverage of it on television.

In the middle of last week's Monica-spasm, the proprietor of this publication--known to the masses as Mugger--asked if I still felt confident about the "$1000 bet." He was referring to a challenge I issued him two months ago. I had heard he was taking action--at $100 a pop--on the proposition that Clinton would not serve out his term. Mugger believes we will wave bye-bye to Bill before January 2001. I wanted in, and I offered to decaduple the amount. He never accepted my offer. It's not that I'm a fan of the Man Who (May Have) Loved Too Much. But I doubt that Starr the tainted prosecutor can nail him and that the Newt-led Reublicans in Congress--not a band that inspires great public confidence--can claim the First Scalp. Impeachment and resignation are acts that occur within extreme political situations. The polls show that such an environment does not yet exist--and that people's opinions are fairly well- fromed on the matrer. Much would have to change to set up the conditions for a premature conclusion to the Clinton presidency. And isn't it obvious? Long ago Bill Clinton struck a deal with the devil. How else to explain his political survival? Mugger, I'm still game. Are you?

Expert Witness

One of the downsides to Monicagate is that if you follow the political talk shows you have to watch a lot of C. Boyden Gray. Throughout this affair and the other Clinton scandals, Gray, an Ichabod Crane-lookalike who was counsel to President George Bush, repeatedly has slammed the President for not coming clean and for obstructing the various investigations. Gray's entitled to these opinions, but the producers who book him ought to add the word "hypocrite" to the tag line that identifies Gray on screen.

When Gray was Bush's consigliore, his portfolio included stonewalling. During the Iran-contra investigation, Lawrence Walsh asked to meet with Bush to discuss how to prosecute employees of U.S. intelligence agencies, Gray replied that Bush would not see Walsh. In his memoirs, Walsh relates other ways Gray schemed to obstruct his inquiry. Gray, Walsh notes, "delayed us by assigning problems related to Iran-Contra document production to a lawyer in private practice who had no knowledge of the subject and claimed that he needed time to learn about it....At the same time, members of Gray's staff were consulting with Ronald Reagan's private attorneys regarding possible claims of executive privilege." (Sound familiar?) When Walsh tried to learn about a key conversation between Gray and another Bush aide, Bush, guided by Gray, claimed that this discussion was covered by attorney-client privilege. (Shades of Bruce Lindsey!) Gray put off turning over relevant materials, including Bush's diary, and he managed not to part with the diary until after the 1992 election.

Throughout Walsh's probe, Gray was a chief spinner (much as Rahm Emanuel and Paul Begala are these days), and Walsh suspected Gray of disseminating misinformation to the press to undermine the investigation. In the end--after Bush lost his bid for reelection but remained in office--Gray was a fierce advocate of issuing pardons to those Reagan-Bush officials Walsh had indicted. Bush took Gray's advice. And when Gray called Walsh to inform him the pardons were coming, Walsh reports, Gray was "half-laughing."

Gray has impeccable credentials to evaluate White House scandals--but he'd be best at informing viewers how a White House can get away with thwarting an independent counsel. Producers should put Gray on the air--the same way they would have booked Willie Sutton to discuss bank robbery.

Perils of Punditry

What tough and dangerous work it is to be a TV pundit, to sit before a television camera, look assured, and blather. You can never reply, "I don't know." Even when you have no clue, you have to act like Sherlock Holmes. And you must be able to see into the future, for any boob, when asked what will happen next in the story of the week, can say, "we'll just see." When Fred Barnes, an often perceptive contributor to the Weekly Standard who then pontificates on television, appeared on Fox News Sunday two Sundays ago, he criticized the negotiations then under way between Starr and Clinton as "a sham." He declared that Clinton would not testify in the Lewinsky investigation "under any circumstances." Three days later, the President agreed to submit to a session with Starr.

Barnes, by the way, is the co-star of a new Fox News Channel show dubbed The Beltway Boys. Fellow boy is Morton Kondracke. FNC--the "We report/You decide" news station -- is promoting the show by noting this duo "tracks Washington's stars on the rise and predicts those who may crash and burn." That emphasis was added.

Gun Nuts

It was eerie: walking through the Capitol rotunda and viewing the flag-draped caskets containing the bodies of Officers Jacob Chestnut and John Gibson. Lobbyists and congressional aides who had chatted merrily while waiting on line outside, turned somberly silent as they filed past the coffins. Even a cynic had to admit that the Hallmarkian sentiments voiced by official leaders--that the Capitol is the people's house--are true. But was there anything else to draw from this sad episode other than platitudes about senseless violence and the need to preserve public access to the workplace of democracy?

That day, a friend from Britain called. "You Americans and your guns," he remarked. One gun tragedy after another--in homes, in schools, in the Capitol, damnit--and there is little reconsideration about the role of guns in the U.S. society. Don't worry. I'll try to avoid the typical tragedy-stirred plea for gun control. But one has to wonder if it is possible, at least, to keep guns from deranged individuals like Russell Weston Jr., the suspect in the Capitol killings. The National Rifle Association wants you to believe we can, for then we don't have to consider the possibility of more widespread limits on gun ownership. But for now the NRA is wrong. There is a federal law prohibiting the sale of firearms to a person who has been committed to a mental institution, and a new computerized "instant" background check of prospective gun buyers--a program championed by the NRA--is scheduled to start up in a few months and is supposed to prevent criminals and the mentally ill from purchasing handguns and rifles. But it's unlikely to work.

On November 30, thanks to the gun lobby, the current version of the Brady Law, will expire and a new version will replace it. Under the original Brady measure, which was passed in 1993, when a person tries to purchase a handgun from a federally licensed dealers, he or she must undergo a background check, which can take no more than five days. (The Brady law does not actually mandate a waiting period. If the check occurs within a day, the sale can go ahead.) To arrange for the check, the dealer contacts a local law enforcement officer, who conducts the review. The local official then reviews computerized criminal records, and he or she can go further by, say, checking with state hospitals or looking at local criminal records that have not been computerized.

The system is hardly airtight. It doesn't cover gun purchases that occur via gun shows, flea markets, classified ads and personal connections. And thanks to a Supreme Court decision, the Brady system is now essentially voluntary. (Law enforcement officials are not compelled to check.) But the new, NRA- blessed regimen will be worse.

Under the instant check program, reviews will have to be completed within three days, not five. Dealers will screen potential buyers by contacting the FBI or a state office. The Bureau or the state entity then will run a computer search. The problem is, there's plenty of relevant information not in the computer system. That includes mental health records. Many states have no central computerized repository indicating who has been committed, and many do not allow mental health records to be released. Montana, where Weston was involuntarily committed in 1996[?], does not permit such information to be used for reviewing gun purchasers. That's why Weston, a paranoid schizophrenic, was able to obtain a firearms ownership identification card in Illinois this year.

Other pertinent information probably won't make it into the new system, which, to a large extent, will depend on state records. (Most felonies are handled in state courts.) Many state criminal databases are not organized well enough to be part of the instant check system. And states often are slow to enter information about criminals into their databases. A conscientious local law enforcement official, who can be expected to be familiar with the problems and idiosyncracies of state record keeping and who is closer to the community, is better positioned to conduct a background check than a far-away, point-and-click computer jockey. Yet after November, the latter will be in charge.

The NRA advocated this instant check program in order to get rid of the original and mild Brady restrictions. In doing so, it has perpetuated a myth: that a national computerized check can make sure the wrong people do not obtain firearms. Yet the system set to come on line in November will not catch a Russell Weston.

I'll spare you overwrought cliches and pleas that that we owe it to Officers Chestnut and Gibson to make certain that the other Russell Westons out there cannot arm themselves. But let's face it: the NRA and the politicians they control really do not want a highly effective system that limits gun ownership for criminals and madmen, for that may inconvenience law-abiding and sane gun- wanters. The price of the NRA's shenanigans is dead bodies across the country and in the Capitol.