July 27, 1998
ESSAY / By WILLIAM SAFIRE
Grand Obstruction
A prosecutor must have a "theory of the case" -- a theme that ties
together the disparate evidence of a conspiracy to obstruct justice --
to give coherent meaning to all the strands of evidence.
Up to now, our attention has been narrowly focused on the Tripp
appearances before a grand jury, the deal-making for Lewinsky testimony,
the Presidential subpoena to testify again under oath.
And as of now, the Clinton defenders are saying: everybody lies about
sexual liaisons, and if one took place here, the cover-up is trivial, certainly
no "high crime" providing the basis for impeachment.
Conventional wisdom has it that the scandals of the first term --
Whitewater and the concealment of files, power abuse in the travel-office
firings, Filegate -- all turned out to be dry holes, with the Little Rock grand
jury shut down, leaving the Independent Counsel with little to show but the
improper inducement to lie about some tawdry hanky-panky.
But what if we're all mistaken? What if the seemingly obsessive pursuit of
false denial in the Lewinsky-Tripp-Willey matter turns out to illuminate a
much broader landscape of witness-tampering and suppression of
evidence? Then we would be talking about a serious abuse of executive
power.
Assume for unconventional argument's sake that a distinct pattern can be
shown -- both in the cast of characters and the technique of payoff
employed -- of possibly hushing up Webster Hubbell on Whitewater and
possibly buying Monica Lewinsky's cooperation in giving a witness "talking
points" to mislead a jury.
Assume that dots can be connected among the use of the office of White
House counsel to transmit false information to a grand jury about the First
Lady's involvement in Travelgate firings, the removal and concealment of
Rose Law Firm files long under subpoena and the improper use of White
House counsel to coordinate and influence the testimony of witnesses and
avoid subpoenas in subsequent criminal investigations.
And assume that Independent Counsel has a witness tying a cover-up of
bank fraud directly to President Clinton himself. That John Dean-like
accuser might be Jim Guy Tucker, Clinton's successor as Arkansas
Governor, who twice met privately with the President and has reportedly
been turning state's evidence since his plea bargain.
If my pure speculation about Ken Starr's "theory of the case" is correct,
and his intent is to show a pervasive pattern of the use of executive power
to obstruct the administration of justice, that would explain (a) the
prosecutor's vain attempt to see the notes of Vincent Foster's lawyer
regarding Travelgate, (b) his ongoing effort to deny privilege to
taxpayer-paid White House lawyers and (c) the prosecutor's appeal of a
recent court decision taking the pressure off the well-compensated Hubbell
to talk.
This approach also suggests that the demand by Clinton Justice for total
Secret Service privilege in the Lewinsky matter was a classic and perhaps
fatal blunder. Resulting sweeping court decisions emboldened Starr to
bring a parade of agents before grand juries. Why assume, as most do,
that the line of questioning is limited to sexual encounters? Agents may
have witnessed obstruction in other matters.
Every bit of corroboration counts.
We already know that Starr sought the services of a professional writer to
draft his report to the courts and Congress. We can logically conclude that
he found a writer whose summary of the criminal information, running a
couple of hundred pages, is now well under way. Space has surely been
left for the insertion of the upcoming testimony of Ms. Lewinsky and of
Secret Service witnesses on the full range of investigations, and for the
coming addition to previous testimony given under oath by President
Clinton.
When will we get this report? My guess is, in Clinton's phrase, sooner
rather than later: Starr need not wait for all appeals to end or trials to be
held before reporting on the Presidential obstruction he encountered over
three years. Public reaction to its startling contents should be "if we had
only known."
More profound question: what conclusions about abuse of power will the
report reach, or lead a reluctant Congress to act upon?
The answer, if I am right, may come more quickly and be more
far-reaching than most imagine.
nytimes.com
|
