Tag Archives: Impeachment/President Clinton

Posted on

NewsHour: Starr’s Tactics – October 2, 1998

by

JIM LEHRER: Congress will release another batch of documents from the Kenneth Starr investigation tomorrow. They come as a prelude to a decision on whether to launch an impeachment inquiry against President Clinton. The Starr investigation that led to the documents and to the proceedings has been the subject of much debate. Margaret Warner now samples that disagreement with two columnists who have written extensively about it.

MARGARET WARNER: And those columnists are Anthony Lewis of the New York Times and Stuart Taylor of National Journal and Newsweek. Tony Lewis, you’ve been scathing in your criticism of Ken Starr’s investigation and his tactics, and last week you said it was essentially illegitimate, an illegitimate process. Explain what you mean by illegitimate.

ANTHONY LEWIS: That would be a long explanation, Ms. Warner, because I think in a great number of ways Kenneth Starr and his people have behaved like overzealous prosecutors in ways that no other federal prosecutor would be allowed to do. Take, for example, when Mr. Starr’s men confronted Monica Lewinsky in the Ritz Carlton Hotel on January 16th. She was told we’re going to bring 27 felony counts against you unless you cooperate with us. Now that was absurd and outrageous. Then they said she couldn’t call her lawyer. They kept her for there for 10 hours and not letting her call her lawyer, and they denigrated her lawyer, Frank Carter, and said, well, he’s not a criminal lawyer anyway, and so he couldn’t help you. And when she wanted to call her mother, instead, you know, Mr. Bennett, Mr. Starr’s deputy, said, oh, you don’t want to call your mommy. It was an overbearing and entirely unfair procedure. Any of us can understand that it’s wrong not to let somebody call a lawyer. That’s basic.

MARGARET WARNER: Was it so unfair that it de-legitimizes, though, the entire process, the entire investigation, the fruits or results of the investigation?

Posted on

Estrich and Taylor Jr.

by Stuart Taylor, Jr & Susan Estrich

Slate.com

From: Susan Estrich
Subject: Start the Coffee
Posted Monday, Sept. 28, 1998, at 2:08 PM ET

Dear Stuart:

What timing.

Here we are, back at Slate, just in time for the President to settle the Paula Jones lawsuit. The unthinkable becomes a footnote. What a difference a year can make. If he’d settled it before his January deposition, none of this would have happened. All he had to do was say he was sorry for whatever it was that he couldn’t remember, and then explain the next day that he said it to protect his friends, family, etc. from the intrusion on their privacy….

Which leads me to my favorite question. Why didn’t he settle before testifying? How could his lawyers have ever let him go into that deposition, if they’d known how vulnerable he was? Here he is being sued for allegedly demanding a blowjob from a 24-year-old employee, and you know your client had a secret relationship involving blowjobs with another 24-year-old employee would you let him go into a deposition? Not to mention the independent counsel down the block, the media, your political enemies, etc.

The only explanation that makes sense to me is that the lawyers didn’t know the truth–that they thought Monica Lewinsky was a stalker with a crush, that it was handled, under control. The lawyer who represents himself has a fool for a client; he loses the objective judgment that the lawyer is supposed to provide. Bill Clinton didn’t want to tell his lawyer (and/or his wife) the truth about his relationship with Monica Lewinsky, and because of that, he’s had to tell the world….

But does the world care?

Posted on

NewsHour: Independent counsel – January 26, 1998

by

PHIL PONCE: Differing views on the independent counsel law and how it’s being implemented now. Joseph DiGenova was the U.S. attorney during the Reagan administration and was appointed independent counsel to investigate former Bush officials in the Clinton passport matter. Kenneth Gormley is professor of law at Duquesne University; Anthony Lewis is a columnist with the New York Times. Byron York is a reporter with the American Spectator and contributor to the Wall Street Journal and the Weekly Standard. And joining them is NewsHour regular Stuart Taylor, senior writer with National Journal and contributing editor to Newsweek. Welcome everyone. Stuart Taylor, some basics under the law, what is an independent counsel supposed to do?

STUART TAYLOR, National Journal: To investigate any allegations of criminal conduct, only criminal conduct on the part of the President or people close to him. The law defines a set of people, cabinet secretaries, top White House aides, and the like, who are subject to investigations by independent counsel, but an independent counsel can only be appointed at the initiative of the attorney general if she believes there’s evidence that warrants the appointment of one. Then she asks a special three-judge federal court to do the appointing, and they choose the person to be appointed.

PHIL PONCE: And what are the special powers that an independent counsel has under the law?

Posted on

NewsHour: President Clinton’s Troubles – January 22, 1998

by

PHIL PONCE: We get answers from NewsHour regular Stuart Taylor, senior writer with the National Journal and contributing editor to Newsweek. Joining him are Dan Webb, a former special prosecutor during the Iran-Contra investigation, and Richard Ben-Veniste, an assistant special prosecutor during Watergate, and the former Democratic counsel during the Senate Whitewater probe. Gentlemen, welcome.

Stuart Taylor, first, some basic concepts. The President’s good friend, Vernon Jordan, said that he has been subpoenaed to appear before a grand jury. What happens in that kind of a context? Is it just like appearing before a criminal grand jury?

Perjury in the context of a grand jury.

STUART TAYLOR, National Journal: It is a criminal grand jury. That’s the only kind of grand jury there is. The grand jury is a group usually of 23 citizens, although they’re not always there, in a room, you know, prosecutors running the show, and the witness walks in and testifies, they exist almost exclusively, if not exclusively for the purpose of conducting criminal investigations and returning indictments. Mr. Jordan will walk into the room. His lawyer will not be allowed to accompany him. He can wait outside. Mr. Jordan will have the option of going outside to consult with his lawyers as often as he wants. The prosecutor asks questions. Mr. Jordan has the option of claiming the Fifth Amendment. I think he made it rather clear today that he would not do that and that he would make a statement consistent with what he said–what we just saw. And then the prosecutors will ask him lots of detailed questions, presumably based on all the little things they think happened between this young woman, Monica Lewinsky, and the President and Vernon Jordan.

PHIL PONCE: And basic terminology, perjury in the context of this investigation.

Posted on

At War In Jones V. Clinton

by Stuart Taylor, Jr.

Newsweek

FOR A LEGAL DOCUMENT, the language is raw. ""Please admit or deny the following,” says the ""request for admissions” served on President Clinton last week. ""While he was governor of the state of Arkansas, Defendant Clinton had sexual relations with women (other than Hillary Rodham Clinton) and members of the Arkansas State Police arranged meetings between Defendant Clinton and the women.”

Jones v. Clinton, never pretty, is turning uglier. Do such filings confirm contentions by Robert Bennett, the president’s lawyer, that ""this is an effort, this whole case, to embarrass and humiliate the president” in a campaign bankrolled by his political enemies? There’s no doubt that members of the Jones camp delight in seeking to embarrass and humiliate Bill Clinton. And there’s no doubt that some of those now supporting Jones, like the Rutherford Institute, have conservative leanings. But as a matter of law, questions about Clinton’s alleged past now appear somewhat more relevant than they did before.

Whether the questions will have to be answered is up to Judge Susan Webber Wright, who must decide which to allow before trial, now set for next May. What relevant evidence could be sought from women with whom Clinton has allegedly had consensual extramarital relations? Not much, it seemed, un…

FOR A LEGAL DOCUMENT, the language is raw. ""Please admit or deny the following,” says the ""request for admissions” served on President Clinton last week. ""While he was governor of the state of Arkansas, Defendant Clinton had sexual relations with women (other than Hillary Rodham Clinton) and members of the Arkansas State Police arranged meetings between Defendant Clinton and the women.”Jones v. Clinton, never pretty, is turning uglier. Do such filings confirm contentions by Robert Bennet

FOR A LEGAL DOCUMENT, the language is raw. ""Please admit or deny the …

Posted on

NewsHour: Supreme Court Will Not Hear Whitewater Appeal – June 23, 1997

by

JIM LEHRER: Today’s three major Supreme Court cases are first tonight. The biggest decision may have been not to hear a case involving First Lady Hillary Clinton. The issue was attorney-client privilege and centered on notes of conversations between presidential lawyers and Mrs. Clinton. NewsHour regular Stuart Taylor of the American Lawyer and Legal Times is here for the details. The case began when, Stuart?

STUART TAYLOR, The American Lawyer: It began, well, it goes back for years in terms of negotiations between Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr and the White House over whether you could have certain documents, but it came to a head last summer when the White House decided to draw a line in the sand and say you may not have these notes of conversations between the First Lady and White House lawyers because they are protected by the attorney-client privilege, and Starr said, no, they’re not and subpoenaed them and precipitated the court battle which ended today.

JIM LEHRER: And the appeals court ruled–which the Supreme Court agreed with today–that they were not protected by attorney-client privilege. Now, we don’t know–we’ll get to that in a minute–we don’t know what the Supreme Court–

STUART TAYLOR: The Supreme Court didn’t exactly agree with it.

JIM LEHRER: Didn’t exactly agree, but the ruling that they were judging was the appeals court, so what did the appeals court say for turning down the White House lawyers’s appeal on this?

STUART TAYLOR: The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 8th Circuit ruled very broadly in an opinion by a Reagan appointee named Pasco Bowman in April, and it was just unsealed in May, that the attorney-client privilege never protects any conversation any government lawyer has with the President, the First Lady, or anyone else against a federal grand jury subpoena.

Posted on

The Facts Of The Matter

by Stuart Taylor, Jr.

Newsweek

PUT ASIDE, FOR A MOMENT, ALL THE POLITICAL WAR-GAM- ing and the hotel-room titillation. At heart, just how strong a case does Paula Jones have? The answer changes depending on whether you focus on facts or law, and on which facts are most important to you. One relevant comparison: Jones’s evidence that Bill Clinton did what she says he did seems stronger than Anita Hill’s rather weak evidence of sexual harassment against Clarence Thomas. Remember, too, that Hill accused Thomas of nothing worse than persistently pestering her for dates and talking dirty over a two-year period when he was her boss. No touching, no flashing, no request for sex. It surprises many people, but the fine print in Jones’s suit is more compelling than you might think. That’s what has the president scrambling for a strategy – and much of the country taking a second, more sympathetic look at Paula Jones.

Facts are what happened; law is the set of rules you apply to that evidence. On the facts, Jones’s suit seems strongest on her claim that on May 8, 1991, Clinton had her interrupted on the job and delivered to him for some kind of sexual overture. It is less convincing, but hardly frivolous, on Jones’s allegations that she spurned Clinton and he persisted by exposing himself and requesting oral sex. It seems most vulnerable on her assertion that she was treated badly at work for having rebuffed her boss’s boss.

On the law – which is far from clear on what it takes to prove illegal sexual harassment – the bottom line is that many judges would probab…

Posted on

NewsHour: Paula Jones – May 27, 1997

by

JIM LEHRER: Today’s two major Supreme Court cases are first tonight. One was a decision, the other a hearing. The decision was the unanimous ruling that Paula Corbin Jones can proceed with her sexual harassment suit against President Clinton while he is in office. NewsHour regular Stuart Taylor of the American Lawyer and Legal Times is here. He wrote an extensive piece in the American Lawyer last November on the Paul Jones case.

Stuart, welcome. First, what was the legal issue before the court today?

STUART TAYLOR, The American Lawyer: The sole issue is whether the President’s status as President would warrant a constitutional decision by the court barring Paula Jones from proceeding with her lawsuit which seeks damages against him for his personal conduct before he was President, or, in fact, barring any private civil damage lawsuit from proceeding against the President until after he leaves office. President Clinton said that the Constitution so required and that the court should so require it even as matter of prudence, even if not as a matter of constitutional law. The court unanimously and emphatically said, no, and rejected the President’s position on both those questions.

JIM LEHRER: On what grounds?

Posted on

NewsHour: Supreme Court on Double Jeopardy – June 24, 1996

by

CHARLES ARLT, Defendant: They took everything we had. We didn’t hide a dime, every transaction was done by the law.

JAMES WREN, Defendant: The government took vehicles, automobiles, and they took aircraft, they took–

MR. KAYE: After the men were indicted on criminal charges, the government filed a civil forfeiture suit in order to confiscate their property. Wren’s lawyer, Shawn Perez, says the government punished the men twice for the same crime. That was double jeopardy, says Perez, a violation of the Constitution’s Fifth Amendment. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals agreed.

SHAWN PEREZ, Lawyer: I see nothing wrong with punishing a person once, and the Constitution says, yes, we can punish you once, but we cannot punish you twice for the same offense in two separate proceedings. Arlt and Wren were punished twice by the forfeiture of their property. After they had already been prosecuted and convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment, the government came back and said, we’re taking everything you own–resulted in a second punishment.

Posted on

The Whitewater Endgame

by Stuart Taylor, Jr.

Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr has no evidence at this point that comes anywhere near warranting criminal prosecution of President Bill Clinton, as far as the public record discloses.

But suppose that Starr has a secret smoking gun, or comes up with one in the next few months. Suppose, for example, that lie succeeds in squeezing one or more of the three former Clinton associates convicted by a Little Rock jury on May 28-or the two others set for trial this month-into giving damning testimony against the president, corroborated by new documents.

What should Starr do then? Seek a grand jury indictment of Ike president? Send his evidence to the House Judiciary Committee for consideration of possible impeachment? Make if public and let the voters pass judgment? Or what?

And what should Starr do if tie thinks he has proof of a crime by Hillary Rodham Clinton? This is a more plausible scenario, given evidence like the 1993 memo by then White House official David Watkins contradicting the first lady’s swom statements that she bad no role in the White House travel office firings, and the belated appearance in her home of subpoenaed Rose Law Firm billing records bearing her fingerprints.

While such questions may seem premature, the fundamental purpose of the entire Starr enterprise is to look for any evidence that may implicate the president in a crime. So perhaps it’s time to start thinking about what Starr should do if he finds some.

The experience of the Watergate era offers some perspective.

In 1973, no less a conservative Republican luminary than then Solicitor General Robert Boric filed a brief arguing that the Constitution bars any criminal indictment of a sitting president, and makes the impeachment process the only remedy for presidential criminality. (He immediate purpose of the brief was to reject Vice President Spiro Agnew’s claim that the Constitution shielded htm, too.)