Hi Christine:
Did you see the Charlie Rose show last night?
Michael Kinsley of Slate (formerly of Crossfire) asked Evan Thomas of Newsweek "then just who did leak Currie's testimony?" Thomas said the it did not come from the office of the IC. Thomas would not, however, say who leaked it, but he said that they knew who did.
Did you see Nightline? Stewart Taylor of the National Journal and PBS Newshour's legal contributor said that Kendall's threat was a a tactic, a smoke screen and a diversion. Taylor said Kendall will be slapped down in Court.
Here's Starr's response to Kendall:
WASHINGTON - Following is a letter to President Clinton's personal lawyer, David
Kendall, by Whitewater independent counsel Kenneth Starr, as provided by Starr's
office:
Your letter of Feb. 6, 1998, accusing this office of improperly disclosing
information, including grand jury testimony, is strange and inappropriate for
three significant reasons. First, you elevate mere suspicion to specific
accusation without any facts other than the press' often-misleading attributions
of sources. Second, the timing of your letter - arriving in the midst of what
appears to be an orchestrated plan to deflect and distract this investigation -
undermines your expression of outrage. Third, we are aware that as of several
days ago, the President's defense attorneys had most, if not all, of the material
information (whether true or not) set forth in today's New York Times article.
In my service as independent counsel, particularly with regard to the secrecy of
the grand jury, I have insisted on a high commitment to professional conduct. I
have expressed this commitment to you repeatedly. From the beginning, I have made
the prohibition of leaks a principal priority of the Office. It is a firing
offense, as well as one that leads to criminal prosecution. In the case of each
allegation of improper disclosure, we have thoroughly investigated the facts and
reminded the staff that leaks are utterly intolerable.
In light of the unclear press attributions in some examples cited in your letter,
I have undertaken an investigation to determine whether, despite my persistent
admonitions, someone in this office may be culpable. I have no factual basis - as
you likewise do not have - even to suspect anyone at this juncture. I am
undertaking this investigation with deep regret, because I know how demoralizing
it is to a staff of highly professional and experienced Federal prosecutors. You
do an extreme disservice to these men and women - and to the legal profession and
the public - by your unsupported charges.
Indeed, the ''facts'' from the press that you cite as evidence of misconduct
were, in each case, known to individuals outside my office. These individuals
include witnesses, my lawyers, and others. Let me cite one noteworthy example:
Monica Lewinsky's attorney, William Ginsburg, has told the world that he was in
touch with lawyers on both sides of the pending civil case.
The ''leaks'' that you complain about, thus, may have come from sources close to
those under investigation. Those sources would have a clear and manifest
motivation to release harmful information with carefully crafted defenses in
order to lessen the painful impact of such evidence when it is revealed through
official proceedings.
Finally, your role as private defense counsel and your loyalty to your client
does not qualify you to lecture me on professional conduct and my legal
responsibilities. I believe you know where I stand and have always stood on these
issues. Fiercely aggressive representation, including through media
grandstanding, cannot be an excuse for smearing a lawyer through reckless
accusations. Let's stick to facts. Let's find out the truth.
drudgereport.com
Judging by the ferocity of the Clinton administration's attempts to undermine Judge Starr, I would say that it's an easy bet that Starr has the upper hand.
Btw, did you see that Ginsburg now says that Starr gave Monica an immunity deal and has backed out? He says he's going to court to have it enforced.
I think Ginsburg is some sort of comedy routine. Events have shown that there was obviously no final deal. Anyway, usually any immunity deal would have had to have been approved by a judge before it's final. Ginsburg seems to have hurt Monica as much, if not more, than anyone else. |
