Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Did Slick Boink Monica? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Zoltan! who wrote (15066)	5/8/1998 12:29:00 AM
From: Zoltan!	Respond to of 20981

....At issue is who informed reporters on Tuesday of a sealed ruling rejecting assertions by Clinton of executive privilege to protect the testimony of his senior aides. On Wednesday, David Kendall, the president's personal lawyer, accused Starr's office of leaking the news, and filed a motion in federal court here seeking a contempt citation against him for violating grand jury secrecy rules. Starr's office denied being the source of the stories. In the letter on Thursday, Bennett said that it was the White House that spread the stories. "We are highly confident that we can establish these facts in an evidentiary hearing," he wrote. If that is true, it would mean that the White House deliberately leaked a story damaging to Clinton in order to lay the blame at Starr's feet. Regardless, Bennett's letter makes clear that a highly sophisticated public-relations war is afoot. Bennett accused the Clinton camp of notifying the news media of Kendall's filing late Wednesday in part to deny "us the opportunity to defend ourselves within the evening news cycle." Kendall on Thursday night ridiculed Bennett's criticisms. "The request to withdraw the motion is ridiculous," he said. "We look forward to a hearing on the independent counsel's press relations." Kendall noted that a Fox television report on the judge's ruling attributed its information to Starr's office. But a reporter for Fox said Wednesday that the attribution had been mistaken. Kendall said on Thursday night that he was "seeking information on the Fox leak" and noted that he had expressed concern about other leaks as well. Starr's office did not return a telephone call seeking comment on Thursday night. nytimes.com