Note from the Editors:

On occasion, we run across an article we find so impressive that we request permission to reprint it in American Politics Journal. Such is the case with Jane Prettyman's latest addition to The Real News Page, an analysis of a suspiciously-worded article in the latest issue of Newsweek. Our thanks to Ms. prettyman for her permission to publish "Starr Writes for Newsweek."

Ms. Prettyman has turned her experienced and critical editorial eye toward this twisted little bit of pseudojournalism, and has come away with a conclusion which we feel will give our readers a shaocking example of the extent to which media and "news" sources can be manipulated.

Keep in mind that "sources close to the independent counsel's office" are quoted as saying that Kenneth Starr is considering including in his highly anticipated report to Congress allegations that the president has committed "abuse of power" and "abuse of office" -- this from a man under investigation himself for criminal activity. As you're reading this, consider Prettymen's evidence and then ask yourself who is really abusing their unchecked power.

-- The Editors

Starr Writes for Newsweek!

by Jane Prettyman

The following Newsweek story from the 8-31-98 issue is reprinted in its entirety under Fair Use for the non-commercial purposes of education and analysis.

---

Pressure: Starr himself has come under investigation

Bill Clinton's address last Monday night sent one unmistakable signal: the president's assault against Ken Starr is far from over. And why not? Even after the president's admission that he lied about having an affair with Lewinsky, much of the public continues to blame the independent counsel for dragging out the investigation.

Starr knows he's unpopular--and under the gun. He has little time left to deliver his impeachment report to Congress. He faces two federal investigations of his office that could blunt the impact of any findings he might eventually make against the president. The most critical of the probes accuses Starr and his staff of illegally leaking information provided to the grand jury. The other suggests that one of Starr's key witnesses in the Whitewater case received payoffs from Clinton enemies. Both are powerful weapons in the White House's continuing campaign to discredit Starr.

In Washington, everyone leaks. Both Starr's team and the Clinton camp have repeatedly given reporters their take on the investigation. If, however, Starr leaked secret grand-jury testimony, he will have violated Rule 6(e), a federal-court edict that subjects leakers to contempt citation--and possibly jail. Part legal ploy, part PR offensive, the leak accusation was drummed up by Clinton lawyer David Kendall last winter. (And another reason Starr's investigation is under time pressure is the time-consuming legal roadblocks deployed by Kendall and the First Client.) Judge Norma Holloway Johnson ordered Starr to prove that his office did not leak secrets. Starr, who has a well-deserved reputation as a careful and plodding lawyer, was stuck arguing the exotic legal theory that revealing contacts with reporters would be tantamount to exposing confidential informants.

It's unclear how the judge will proceed. But Starr and his deputies are likely to be put under oath and interrogated about their discussions with reporters. The president's defenders vow to keep the pressure on Starr. "The leaks investigation is very much alive," Kendall told Newsweek. If the Clinton team can prove Starr leaked, he could be fired.

The leaks investigation isn't Starr's only worry. Clinton allies have dug up witnesses who claim that one of Starr's key Whitewater witnesses received payoffs from some of the Clintons' right-wing enemies. Starr relied on testimony from former Little Rock municipal judge David Hale to convict key Whitewater figures, including Jim and Susan McDougal. Now accusations have surfaced that Hale got secret payments from people working on an anti-Clinton investigation by The American Spectator magazine that was being financed by conservative billionaire Richard Mellon Scaife. Hale, the magazine and Scaife all deny that any payments were made. Former Justice Department watchdog Michael Shaheen Jr. has been given broad powers by Starr and Justice to probe the allegations. Shaheen has begun calling witnesses before an Arkansas grand jury. And, Newsweek has learned, Starr himself and one of his top deputies, Hickman Ewing, have been questioned by Shaheen's investigators.

Both investigations could be completed this fall. The president's spinners remain ready to pounce if Starr has made any mistakes. By that time, though, the independent counsel plans to have sent his report on the Monica Lewinsky affair to Capitol Hill. Each man holds power over the other's fate--and judgment day for both is coming fast.

When we read this story late last night, we knew we had seen, finally, the single worst piece of news reporting we have ever seen in our 45 years of reading news reports. Not because it is poorly written (it is). Not because it is typical of the attutude writing so common in modern journalism (it is). This is a bad story because it does not report the truth it is designed to convey as "news" but instead hides that truth, a truth--so long as we are so concerned with truth these days--that goes to the heart of darkness of Ken Starr's four-year investigation.

This Newsweek article is a gem example of the trashing of the intent of the First Amendment by which a "free press" is protected so that citizens might have access to knowledge and vital information for their decision-making in relation to government. Inasmuch as Ken Starr is a stellar (some would say roving asteroid) member of government, this "news" story is a stellar negation of that First Amendment freedom which is given not for the benefit of the press but for the benefit of the people. --Jane W.Prettyman

[Ghostwritten by Kenneth W. Starr, Hickman (“Hick”) Ewing, and Jackie Bennett, Jr.

Follow this carefully. The subject of this story is the legal pressure on Starr because of two major aspects of possible criminal wrongdoing on his part in his investigation of Bill Clinton. Newsweek begins the story with “Bill Clinton’s assault against Ken Starr,” starting with the assumption that Clinton has already been “assaulting” Starr for a while and it is “far from over.” An assault is “a violent physical or verbal attack” (Webster’s).

The set up of the story (not the true subject but the angle, the slant) is that Starr’s potentially criminal troubles stem from “Bill Clinton’s assault [violent attack] against Ken Starr.” In this set up, Starr’s potentially criminal troubles do not stem from the actions of Judge Norma Holloway Johnson investigating Starr’s alleged leaks of Grand Jury information, nor do they stem from the actions of Independent Special Investigator Michael Sheehan investigating alleged payola to Starr’s star Whitewater witness David Hale. Starr’s potentially criminal troubles are the fault of Bill Clinton. This is the frame of the story.

In a glorious display of circular reasoning, as we read on through this article, Newsweek will tell us “why [Clinton's violent attack is] far from over” by telling us how the charges against Starr under investigation by Judge Johnson and Michael Shaheen arose from “Clinton’s allies,” “Clinton’s spinner’s,” “part ploy and part PR offensive.” In a word: they are inconsequential and only rise to the surface of apparency at a few deeply buried points, stunningly, in surreal fashion, easily read over if we're not alert.

Newsweek never does tell us really why Clinton's “assault” (violent attack) is “far from over.” That's because Newsweek has melded Clinton with two completely autonomous investigations of Starr's potentially criminal wrongdoing. It is these investigations that are "far from over," but Newsweek doesn't want us to know that what's they're saying. Newsweek will concentrate instead on framing Starr’s potentially criminal wrongdoing in terms of Starr being a victim of Clinton’s “assault [violent attack] against Ken Starr” and tuck in (hide) a few important facts about the Johnson and Shaheen investigations in a masterful display of involuted reporting.

Even after the President's admission that he lied about having an affair with Lewinsky, much of the public continues to blame the independent counsel for dragging out the investigation.

The public seems to be the subject of this sentence, as the Starr-blamers. Butit's a set up to be overturned. The public in this context is discounted (use of the word "blame"). What do they know? The real theme of the article is introduced. The Starrian (and hence Newsoid) angle in this news report is--and always has been, long before last January--that "much of the public continues to blame the independent counsel for dragging out the investigation"--but the public is wrong. Clinton is “dragging out the investigation.”

Starr knows he's unpopular--and under the gun.

Beware a man who revels in unpopularity and wears it like a badge of honor, he who sneers at popularity and dismisses it as sentimental populism, "pandering to the public." "Unpopular" is code language for the loaded role Starr plays, a natural theocrat beyond the control of a democratic populace, beyond the reach of the will of the people. "I don't need to be liked, I'm not elected, I don't have to run for re-election. I don't have to respond to you, only to my concrete view of the law." The IC statute let this happen, released full powers to precisely the sort of "minister of justice" that many American colonists fled Europe to escape. (See "Elder at the Gates.")

Choice of words: “Starr is... under the gun” in association with Clinton’s “assault [violent attack] against Ken Starr.” Whose gun is he under? Although logically he’s under the gun of “time” and a couple of serious investigations, the intuitive metaphoric resonance of terms in this article suggests that it is Bill Clinton’s gun in Clinton’s “assault [violent attack] against Ken Starr.”

He has little time left to deliver his impeachment report to Congress.

But just enough time. "Little time left" creates suspense (See "The Danger Game"). Starr’s clockwork has been carefully timed to unload the “Starr Dump” full of lurid details about Lewinsky on Congress precisely to explode in the faces of Demos running for election and re-election and split Demos from Clinton who are already splitting since August 17. The Starr Dump is right on time. The first shovel-full appeared in a news item in the same Newsweek issue as this story (8-31) wherein it was reported that “Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr’s report on his investigation of the President’s affair with Monica Lewinsky includes graphic vignettes of their encounters in his study off the Oval Office. ‘When people read this, they’ll want to throw up,’ “an unnamed source is quoted as saying, unnamed no doubt because it's probably Ken Starr or one of his deputies.

People in “the public” wonder why Starr is going after a match of DNA if he already has Clinton’s admission. They wonder why his Report includes “graphic vignettes of their encounters” that will make them want to throw up. Silly public. They don’t get it. Starr is an “Elder at the Gates” who seeks not "truth" but Clinton's scalp, who wants to bring the wrath of God down upon the head of this "evil-doer" and make it impossible for the silly public (what do they know?) to judge Clinton in their own terms, maybe even forgive him, who knows, it happens every couple thousand years from public men whose names begin with “J.”

Starr faces two federal investigations of his office that could blunt the impact of any findings he might eventually make against the President. The most critical of the probes accuses Starr and his staff of illegally leaking information provided to the grand jury. The other suggests that one of Starr's key witnesses in the Whitewater case received payoffs from Clinton enemies. Both are powerful weapons in the White House's continuing campaign to discredit Starr.

There they go again, back on track of the “assault” (violent attack) with “powerful weapons” in the White House’s continuing "campaign to discredit Starr.” In order for Newsweek’s set-up frame to work, they must maintain the concept that Bill Clinton is conducting Judge Johnson’s investigation into Grand Jury leaks and Bill Clinton has been appointed by Ken Starr to investigate alleged payola to Hale. They must maintain the concept that Clinton is conducting a “campaign to discredit Starr,” as though there were not legitimate grounds for anyone else to object to Starr’s tactics. The “campaign to discredit Starr” is a key paranoid theme of Starr’s office, revealed in their relentless questioning of witnesses about who is saying unkind things about the Independent Counsel. This giveaway phrase is the first “fingerprint” of Starr’s hand in ghostwriting this news story, either actually or figuratively, inasmuch as Newsweek reporters are lapdog stenographers, as Steve Brill put it, for Starr’s propaganda machine.

Then comes the Newsweek discussion of the GJ leaks investigation. Watch this set-up:

In Washington, everyone leaks. Both Starr's team and the Clinton camp have repeatedly given reporters their take on the investigation. If, however, Starr leaked secret grand-jury testimony, he will have violated Rule 6(e), a federal-court edict that subjects leakers to contempt citation--and possibly jail.

The recipe for mud pie: First, take the pressure off Starr by saying “everyone leaks.” Then equate the quality and content of leaks from Starr and the WH as similar types of leaks. Then use the phrase “Starr’s team” which sounds professional and sporty but be sure to say “the Clinton camp” as though they were bivouacked outside the Starr fort as they conduct their “assault” (violent attack) from a grimy little guerrilla encampment, like a terrorist band. A “camp” by definition is temporary, exposed to the elements, and not particularly stable.

Then clarify, oh, by the way, “everyone leaks” really means something else. Actually what it means is that Starr isn’t supposed to leak. They don't say why it's so important for Starr not to leak Grand Jury or OIC info, except to say there's "this rule." Almost nobody in the newsmedia does, but that's another story.

Then use the limited word “testimony” instead of any information or matter or strategy or evidence before the Grand Jury, not just actual testimony in the Grand Jury chamber but preliminary interviews with FBI and prosecutors, any hints of strategy of the prosecutors, the OIC’s “take on the investigation”--all these and testimony are absolutely secret and forbidden by Rule 6(e) to disclose.

This troublesome little rule--separating America from a banana republic dictatorship of prosecutorial hegemony of uncross-examined testimony--was not installed by a whimsical “federal court edict” but by the Federal Code of Criminal Procedure (although in May 1998, the DC Appeals Court did remind every lawyer in America in no uncertain terms exactly what 6(e) covers and how it works. Starr may have been giving a speech on the subject of “The Temple of Justice” to a conservative association of lawyers and missed the briefing).

After all that skewing of the facts of the law, Newsweek’s tag line”--and possibly jail” sounds insignificant and a long way off.

In fact, Newsweek’s interpretation of Rule 6(e) is exactly the misinterpretation that Starr articulated to Steve Brill in his now-famous “Pressgate” interview (see Brill’s Content, July/August 1998 issue). This is another little signal that leads us to believe that either Starr had input on this article and/or Newsweek has a low learning curve.

Part legal ploy, part PR offensive, the leak accusation was drummed up by Clinton lawyer David Kendall last winter. (And another reason Starr's investigation is under time pressure is the time-consuming legal roadblocks deployed by Kendall and the First Client.)

Like a piece of music with a repeated motif, here comes the “dragging out the investigation” theme, right on cue from media-conductor Starr's baton. Here's the score: First characterize Starr’s potentially criminal troubles with Grand Jury and OIC investigation leaks as stemming from a “legal ploy” (Webster’s: ploy = “a maneuver having no merit intended to disconcert”) to “drag out the investigation.” Then couple that with “PR” (public relations, insincerity, falsity) and repeat the theme of “assault” by using the word “offensive” (attack, hostile action). Then convey that Starr’s potentially criminal troubles with leaks were “drummed up” as if made up, fabricated, and hence not meritorious legally. Then be sure to shoe-horn in an awkward insertion in parens to reinforce the theme of “dragging out the investigation” by saying this “ploy,” this “PR offensive,” this “drummed up accusation" that has no merit is: “another reason Starr's investigation is under time pressure [because of] the time-consuming legal roadblocks deployed by [Bill Clinton].”

In music this would be the coda of Newsweek’s little symphony, this Starrian aria, the recapitulation in full circle of circular logic. Starr’s potentially criminal troubles with Grand Jury leaks are “roadblocks deployed” by Kendall and Clinton on Starr’s road to “the temple of justice,” his highway to the law of heaven. His potentially criminal troubles are “time consuming” and the fact that they are “dragging out the investigation” is Clinton’s fault. The awkward parens insert is another fingerprint of Starr’s hand in ghost-writing this “news” story. Especially given the awkward start to the parens sentence with "And," as though an afterthought, it almost seems as if the reporters received a phone call and were told, “Stick this in somewhere” and they smashed it in at the last minute.

Now we get to the hard part--how to tell readers how serious this is for Mr. Starr and how to break the news that Starr is using an argument to delay--dare we say it? stonewall--his potentially criminal troubles. Starr--er, Newsweek’s writers--must have been up all night writing this one:

Judge Norma Holloway Johnson ordered Starr to prove that his office did not leak secrets. Starr, who has a well-deserved reputation as a careful and plodding lawyer, was stuck arguing the exotic legal theory that revealing contacts with reporters would be tantamount to exposing confidential informants.

This last sentence is Newsweek’s way of stonewalling the truth and “dragging out the investigation” by readers who are trying to figure out this crazy case. This sentence contains one of the biggest stories in the last four years of Independent Counseling--and how does Starr--er, Newsweek--handle it? First--always a great technique--shoot the bad news first, up front and fast, but twist the facts just a bit while seeming to be forthright. Starr has to show cause as to why he is not in contempt of court for leaking secrets. Judge Johnson has already established to her satisfaction that he has leaked secret information. She is now probing to see whether there are extenuating circumstances and demanding that Starr show why his actions are not in contempt of the Temple of Justice.

Next, follow this bad news with a fast follow-on sentence saying nice-sounding things about Starr’s “well-deserved reputation as a careful and plodding lawyer,” plodding step by step towards the truth. But wait a minute! He became “stuck” in an “exotic legal theory”! He was again dragged off track by an unseen and mysterious force to which he fell victim, an “exotic” (Webster’s defines this word as ‘foreign, strangely beautiful, enticing’) legal theory”! What would they say about that in the Temple of Justice?

Using the term "exotic" makes a joke of Starr's seriously submitted argument to the Court, just as the notion of Starr's "tin ear" makes light of his ruthlessness. Both avoid explication of what they cover up.

What is this foreign, strangely beautiful, enticing legal theory which Starr became “stuck” arguing, as though clownishly caught off balance? You’re not gonna believe this but what Starr found himself victimized into arguing in order to save his ass was that “revealing contacts with reporters would be tantamount to exposing confidential informants.”

Just let that settle down in your cranium for a while.

Judge Johnson has asked Starr to produce the names of reporters to whom he gave secret Grand Jury material and/or Independent Counsel strategy information, his “take on the investigation,” perhaps even misinformation about what was being said by witnesses. Starr is refusing to comply with her order by saying to Judge Johnson that the reporters were giving him information for use in his prosecution of the President of the United States.

Let that settle down in your cranium for a while.

The slippery and obfuscated manner of writing in this news story may have been done entirely so as to hide the full impact of what this single piece of news means.

Think of Starr soliciting information for the prosecution of the President from the reporters who were writers of this article, for example, or from Newsweek’s Michael Isikoff who was reportedly one of his “favored reporters” who have been prosecuting Clinton in print for four solid years. They are veterans in the art of this particular prosecution and ripe to serve as “informants” for Mr. Starr in his--dare we say it?--assault against Mr. Clinton.

Truly a foreign, strangely beautiful, enticing idea if one is one of those many reporters with a pen to grind against this President under pressure from stockholders who demand ratings and circulation performance by proving to their conservative suburban viewers and subscribers that the newsmedia are not really as liberal as conservatives always think they are. Favored Starr reporters like Steve Labaton and Susan Schmidt would be ideal “informants” for Mr. Starr, if this were a real legal argument.

But of course this isn’t a real legal argument. Every reporter worth his or her salt has vehemently denied such a thing. It’s a ploy, it’s a stall, it’s a stonewall by Starr, the Templar of Justice, to avoid telling the truth and complying with the Judge’s order. It’s a false argument. It’s a way of “dragging out [Judge Johnson’s] investigation.”

It's an absurd argument that makes reporters laugh while they (like those here in this Newsweek piece) hide the full impact of what this single piece of news really means.

Starr's argument to Judge Johnson is a lie.

It’s obstruction of justice.

Let that sit in your cranium for a while.

It's unclear [it’s not "unclear," it’s unknown] how the judge will proceed. But Starr and his deputies are likely to be put under oath and interrogated about their discussions with reporters. The President's defenders vow to keep the pressure on Starr. "The leaks investigation is very much alive," Kendall told Newsweek. If the Clinton team can prove Starr leaked, he could be fired.

Well, that’s straightforward, “he could be fired.” But "proving leaks" is disingenuous. The Judge has already held that Starr leaked. The “Clinton team” (risen in stature here) has done its job of showing that leaks occurred. Now Starr must prove to her why she should not hold him in contempt of the Temple of Justice.

We’re moving quickly from here on to complete this post-mortem . . .

The leaks investigation isn't Starr's only worry. Clinton allies [Murray Waas and Jonathan Broder, hardly Clinton “allies” although they are not fond of Starr] have dug up [see “drummed up” above; "dug up" implies a low degree of value, like a weed or a bone dug up by a dog] witnesses who claim that one of Starr's key Whitewater witnesses [David Hale] received payoffs from some of the Clintons' right-wing enemies. Starr relied on testimony from former Little Rock municipal judge David Hale to convict key Whitewater figures, including Jim and Susan McDougal. [Newsweek dropped one small fact: Hale also made the most damaging accusation against Clinton, the most key figure, by claiming Clinton asked Hale to make an illegal $300,000 loan to Susan McDougal--see the fascinating and harrowing 5-part Murray Waas series on Hale in Aug 1998, Salon]. Now accusations have surfaced [they surfaced 6 months ago] that Hale got secret payments from people working on an anti-Clinton investigation [called “The Arkansas Project” which also financed the troopers and their tales] by The American Spectator magazine that was being financed by conservative billionaire Richard Mellon Scaife.

Hale, the magazine [whose probe of payments to Hale was conducted by Starr’s close friend and law partner Ted Olson] and Scaife all deny that any payments were made. Former Justice Department watchdog Michael Shaheen Jr. has been given broad powers by Starr and Justice to probe the allegations. Shaheen has begun calling witnesses before an Arkansas grand jury. And, Newsweek has learned, Starr himself [Himself] and one of his top deputies, Hickman Ewing, have been questioned by Shaheen's investigators.

Both investigations could be completed this fall. The President's spinners [along with 70% of the American public who disapprove of Starr’s tactics and unelected partisanship] remain ready to pounce if Starr has made any mistakes. By that time, though, the independent counsel plans to have sent his report [The Starr Dump] about the Monica Lewinsky affair to Capitol Hill [legally it’s a “matter,” journalistically and in Starrian terms it’s an “affair” to rub Clinton’s great mistake in our eyes]. Each man holds power over the other's fate--[no, Starr holds power over Clinton’s fate, Clinton has no power over Starr's fate because of political restraints. Judge Johnson and Michael Sheehan are the ones who hold power over Starr's fate, much as Newsweek has attempted tortuously to make it appear that Starr's fate in his potentially criminal troubles is under Clinton's power] and Judgment Day for both is coming fast.

Aha! Judgment Day! The final clue and the perfect Starrian signature giving away his spiritual if not actual authorship of this “news” story. A pedigree lapdog job.

Did Newsweek's writers attend Starr's Sunday School class as part of their "investigative reporting"?