SI
SI
discoversearch

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: E who wrote (18895)9/5/1998 6:25:00 PM
From: Les H  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 20981
 
HERE'S WHAT I TOLD THE GRAND JURY ABOUT MY PAL - THE PRESIDENT

By DICK MORRIS

I TESTIFIED before Kenneth Starr's grand jury for about four
hours yesterday.

I did so only under the coercion of a subpoena. I had a legal
obligation to do so. Now that I've told them about my
conversations with the president, I should tell you.

The questions centered around five phone conversations I had
with the president on Jan. 21, 22 and 23 - in the days after the
Monica Lewinsky scandal broke.

One chat of about 15 minutes was at noon on the 21st, just
hours after the scandal had become public knowledge.

"You poor bastard," I remembered saying to the president
when he got on the line. "I know what you are going through and
my heart is with you."

The president was in a bad way. He was depressed,
disoriented and almost on the verge of tears. Clearly, shame
and remorse had overtaken denial.

Although he repeatedly denied that the charges against him
were true, he kept slipping in comments that made me
understand that there was more to this than just a simple denial
would cover.

"I just slipped up with that girl," he said. "Ever since I was
elected, I've tried to avoid things like this, but I just slipped."

He turned defensive. "I didn't do what they said I did. The
charges are untrue," he said. "But I did do something, and I'm
not sure I can prove my innocence."

The president warned that "there may be gifts and messages
on her telephone answering machine."

I didn't ask him what the "something" was, but I took his cue
that it was big. I told him Americans have a broad capacity for
forgiveness and that he should consider "playing outside the
foul lines of the judicial system by going over Starr's head and
speaking directly to the American people."

"You think it'll work?" Clinton asked.

"Let's poll it," I suggested.

"How can you do that?" he asked.

"Same way we always do," I answered. "I'll read the voters
several different scenarios and I'll call you back with the
numbers."

"When can you do it?"

"Tonight."

"Do it," he said and then he hung up.

It was some questionnaire. I asked voters if they felt Clinton had
ever committed adultery. (Fifty percent said yes.)

Did he commit adultery more or less frequently than JFK?
(Less, by 2 to 1.)

But the key question was one in which I read the voters the
public accusations about Lewinsky.

Taking my lead from the president's hint about "something," I
then asked voters how they would respond if the president
admitted he had had some kind of sex with Lewinsky. No
problem.

But when it came to admitting that he had not been truthful in
the deposition, they jumped ship. More than 50 percent wanted
him impeached if he either lied or obstructed justice.

I read voters a speech similar to the one the president gave on
Monday night (minus the Starr-bashing). A majority still opted
for his head. Thirty-five percent felt he should go to jail.

"I didn't ask about capital punishment," I noted cynically.

"It won't fly," I told him. "They just won't buy it."

"I've told you the charges are false," the president interjected
defensively.

"Yes, you have," I replied avoiding the "something" he had
confessed to doing in our conversation that morning.

"But if you get anywhere near lying under oath, you're cooked." I
noted that I had "dearly hoped that forgiveness was out there"
but that "it's just not there. You can't go out on that road. Not
yet."

When the president finally explained (sort of) what the
"something" he did was on Monday night, I recalled the Jan. 21
poll.

It has taken the public eight months, but the forgiveness
quotient has increased steadily each month. When I wrote two
weeks ago suggesting a mea-culpa speech, I faxed my column
to the president as a signal that I believed that the published
polls showed that a speech he couldn't have given in January
he could give now.

Of course, he didn't really give it. The speech Monday was
more arrogant than abject. More contentious than contrite.

The realization of his own human flaws that made my heart go
out to him on Jan. 21 - the implied recognition that he had to
change - was gone.

In its place, we saw a president angry, stiff and self-righteous.
Where he needed our sympathy, he appealed to our
partisanship. He would have done better to have asked for our
mercy. ------------

Dick Morris is a former top adviser to President Clinton. His
column appears every Tuesday in The Post.

nypostonline.com



To: E who wrote (18895)9/5/1998 6:29:00 PM
From: Les H  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 20981
 
Rumor Mill Grinds Out a New, Shadowy Intern

By Howard Kurtz
Washington Post Staff Writer
Saturday, September 5, 1998; Page D01

The Monica Lewinsky frenzy has produced yet another bizarre media
development: public speculation about an alleged article about a sexual
rumor that no journalist has confirmed.

Fred Barnes helped put the rumor in play last weekend on his "Beltway
Boys" show on Fox News Channel. He declared that "politicians,
newspaper reporters, TV people all around town were talking about the
possibility that there's a second intern who was sexually involved with the
president."

Talking about the possibility?

By yesterday, journalistic temperatures had risen to the point that WMAL
radio anchor Andy Parks asked ABC correspondent Bettina Gregory
about "a couple of sources" saying "that The Washington Post is about to
go with a story that talks about other interns involved."

"Bob Woodward had denied that, and I don't know whether he denied
because he didn't want other people to work on it," Gregory said. "For a
long time there have been rumors -- this is speculation -- unconfirmed
rumors that there were other interns that had been involved."

ABC was not pleased with Gregory's comments. "We're in the business of
reporting, not speculating," said network spokeswoman Eileen Murphy.
"The issues raised here are serious. We will deal with the situation internally
and privately."

The talk keeps spreading. The CBS affiliate in Greensboro, N.C.,
yesterday asked to interview Rep. Howard Coble (R-N.C.) about the
rumor that Woodward was about to link President Clinton to a second
intern.

Barnes, the Weekly Standard's executive editor, discussed the rumor
during a Fox segment dubbed "The Buzz." Yesterday he described his
dilemma this way: "Whether I should mention . . . something that is merely
buzz, unconfirmed, and we don't know if it will ever be confirmed. I
thought about it and decided what the heck. I probably pushed the
envelope on that, but I don't regret it."

To be sure, several news organizations are pursuing the alleged allegation.
Each day brings new whispers that some outlet -- Time, Newsweek,
ABC, the Los Angeles Times, The Post -- is about to run with the rumor.
White House aides have been calling reporters to ask whether they're
about to break the story; one official gave other reporters Woodward's
vacation schedule. Journalists have studied a White House videotape of
Clinton apparently befriending a young woman who may or may not be the
supposed intern.

Could such a Second Intern story actually be published? Journalists
interviewed yesterday said no such story could be reported without an
on-the-record confirmation from the woman in question (if she exists) or a
statement by her to prosecutors. And neither seems to be forthcoming.

"This media circus, which has gotten so out of hand that you're writing
about it, is feeding off rumors with no factual basis and ignores the
devastating impact on the human beings involved," said White House
spokesman Jim Kennedy. "No wonder the public is so fed up with the
press."

The rumor mill has been in overdrive all week. The writer of the New
York Post's gossipy Page Six column rang up Woodward this week to ask
whether he was, as the tabloid put it, "about to break a big exclusive about
a second White House intern." "Absolutely untrue," said Woodward. That
was enough to warrant an item.

Woodward, who now declines to discuss what he's working on, yesterday
expressed "serious consternation" about the rumors. "This is the sickest
measure of what we've come to," he said. "If there's no story, people have
to talk about a story that might be coming. We fill the vacuum with an
expectation."

And that expectation has many journalists working overtime. "I've been
chasing these rumors since last Wednesday, and it's made me nuts," said
NBC reporter Lisa Myers. "That's totally unfair to the president, to
speculate about another person out there, particularly an intern, when so
far there's no credible evidence that there is."

On WMAL yesterday, anchor Parks also said that The Post article
"possibly soon to be printed . . . deals with Al Gore preparing for a
transition." Chris Lehane, Vice President Gore's spokesman, phoned in to
call the idea "ludicrous."

"We've responded to these crazy rumors by knocking them down as
strongly as possible as ludicrous or nutty or zero, zip, nothing," said
Lehane, who fielded several media inquiries yesterday.

John Butler, WMAL's operations director, said the question was, "Is it
appropriate for a talk show in the context of a discussion of whether a
second or third intern would matter? It's all right. I think it's fair game."