Lewinsky to Friend: 'I Gave Them Nothing' nytimes.com
On Friday night, a friend said, the young woman cried herself to sleep. On Saturday, she had to prepare once more for another grilling as the most famous witness in the oft-told story of the president and the intern.
And minutes after that interview ended Sunday with the departure of three House prosecutors in the impeachment trial of President Clinton, Monica S. Lewinsky told a close friend, "I gave them nothing."
Forced to return to the scene of the presidential impeachment scandal, Ms. Lewinsky remained at the Mayflower Hotel, out of public sight.
Ms. Lewinsky's impression of the meeting, said her friend, who spoke on condition of anonymity, was that, for all the amiability of her visitors and all the reviewing of familiar grounds of evidence, the House managers themselves left looking disappointed in sum.
On the street outside, however, they issued brief, careful comments of optimism, portraying her as a critically needed witness.
"It went really well," Ms. Lewinsky declared afterward, according to her close friend's account. "I felt really positive about it, but I didn't have anything new to say."
On the other hand. . .
Prosecutors Query Lewinsky, Saying She'd Be Good Witness nytimes.com
But at any rate,
Experts Scold Decision to Question Lewinsky nytimes.com
In his brief to Judge Johnson, Starr argued that his authority to force Ms. Lewinsky to talk to anyone was unlimited. The immunity agreement provides that she agrees to be debriefed by the Office of Independent Counsel along with "representatives of any institutions as the OIC may require." The brief interpreted this clause to mean that Ms. Lewinsky "has agreed to be debriefed by representatives of any institution when so required by the OIC."
Under that interpretation, Tribe said that Starr could require Ms. Lewinsky to meet with representatives from the government of France.
The issue may be moot at least as it concerns Ms. Lewinsky, who met Sunday afternoon with the House managers and representatives of the independent counsel after her lawyers chose not to appeal Judge Johnson's ruling.
In his brief Starr also denied that he was acting as an agent of the House managers. Rather, he said, he had a "continuing duty to provide the House with information relating to impeachment."
A subtle distinction there, especially as the House chose not to call Lewinsky as a witness before THEIR vote. But in the end. . .
Under the Veil of Chaos, a Possible Resolution nytimes.com
On the surface, the impeachment trial appears to be on the verge of chaos, with Senate Republicans lacking a coherent plan, House Republicans and Kenneth Starr throwing hail Mary passes, and Senate Democrats in a state of fuming outrage.
But everything could still end this week, if half a dozen Republicans vote against witnesses, joining the solid ranks of Democrats who did not want them to begin with and now feel that Rep. Henry Hyde of Illinois and Starr pulled a fast one with their secret effort to force Monica Lewinsky to audition for a role as a witness. If that happens, and they join Democrats in rejecting a call for witnesses, the next step will be to debate and vote on conviction.
There were hints of such a course on Sunday morning's television talk shows. Four Republican senators said they saw little or no need for witnesses, and three more said that they wanted witnesses themselves but were not sure if a majority of the Senate would.
And perhaps the most telling suggestion of all came from Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., who said on CNN's "Late Edition" that if the Republicans would supply enough votes to defeat a motion for witnesses, then, "I believe we could completely avoid the vote on dismissal. We would then, if necessary, have a vote on the witnesses with the assurance that we're not going to have them. And we could move on Monday or Tuesday to the final deliberation, up or down. I think Democrats would leap at that."
Well, whatever. The show must go on , or maybe not. At the end of this story, we have;
Still, the big issue is not whether senators want to get this over. It is the question of whether a few of the Republicans will choose to buck their party's right wing.
Despite the semidefection of Pat Robertson, the head of the Christian Coalition, who said last week that the case was a loser and should be dismissed, and then said Sunday, "I wasn't suggesting that somehow they ought to just close it all down," the religious conservatives carry great weight in the Republican Party.
There are plenty of Republican senators wishing now that six of their colleagues will be brave.
Come on, Republicans, don't be brave. Play to the red meat crowd, they'll carry the party through the next election in grand style. The latest word:
Dismissal of Clinton Case Debated nytimes.com
A decision by the House prosecutors to winnow their witness list during the day marked an attempt to hold the support of wavering Republican senators whose votes will be crucial when the roll is called.
Ms. Lewinsky, remains at the top of the list, House officials said, and there is continued interest in seeking testimony from Betty Currie, the president's secretary. Additional consideration is being given to adding presidential friend Vernon Jordan to the list, or perhaps a White House aide, either chief of staff John Podesta or Sidney Blumenthal.
The officials, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said the idea of trying to question Kathleen Willey had been dropped, as had the idea of summoning any of a handful of other, less well-known women who have alleged that Clinton made unwelcome sexual advances. House prosecutors had long sought their testimony to see whether Clinton or associates tried to intimidate them to change their stories.
Of course, dropping Willey won't do anything for poor Julie Steele and her unfortunate entanglement with the Starr Inquisition. I'm sure Willey will forever be an issue here, too, just like all the other charges that incompetent Starr couldn't come up with any evidence on. The show may be over sooner than we'd like, but who can say? |
