FRIDAY
NOVEMBER 06, 1998
WorldNetDaily
Is Starr holding out?
Judiciary Committee member
warns him to deliver it all
By David M. Bresnahan
Copyright 1998 WorldNetDaily
Reports of a strategy to indict both President Clinton and first lady Hillary Clinton on criminal charges rather than give all evidence to Congress has angered at least one member of the House Judiciary Committee.
Recent reports from sources close to Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr's investigative team claim he is preparing to dump more evidence on the committee any day. They also claim that Starr does not wish to give everything to the House, because he would like to indict both Clintons once they are out of the White House.
It was also reported that Starr is fearful he will lose that opportunity if a pardon is granted to the Clintons. Turning over all evidence now might make a future indictment impossible. The same source reported that Starr does not wish to deal with the debatable question as to whether a sitting president can be indicted.
Rep. Chris Cannon, R-UT, a member of the House Judiciary Committee, expressed anger regarding the strategies reportedly being considered by Starr in an exclusive interview with WorldNetDaily yesterday. He is dismayed that Starr's priority may be to pursue indictments rather than to use everything he has to support impeachment.
"That is an arrogant statement of one of the things that I think might be going on in Ken Starr's mind. He is a smart enough man that he's weighed all those issues. I think that is absolutely bad, wrong and inappropriate," stated Cannon emphatically. "We don't want a weak president, because then our enemies are emboldened," he warned. "We don't want a president who hurts our national interests, because that's bad. It is clear that many things have happened that are deeply hurting our national interests. Some of those appear to be tied pretty closely to illegal campaign contributions. I don't care about this man going to jail for those things. I want him out of the position in which he can continue to do damage to the nation! I mean, golly, you can't stop the next president from pardoning the guy. You can't stop that. But if the pardon is done in the context that the American people don't support, it can be set aside."
"My message to anyone who's thinking and whispering those things to Kenneth Starr is: Stop it! That is un-American. That is not the way we do business in America. If you want to take on the president while he's a sitting president, hey there's an argument you can do that. I don't think that's appropriate. There's an argument. On the other hand, don't hold back while we have a problem in the White House because you want to have a shot at indicting the guy. That's just wrong."
The House Judiciary Committee has scheduled a hearing with Starr for Nov. 19.
Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-UT, has expressed concerns that even if the House votes favorably for articles of impeachment, the Senate may not have enough votes to convict. He has said previously that unless additional evidence is brought forward by Starr, there is little chance Senate Democrats will vote to remove Clinton.
Cannon disagrees. He said he believes that in the end Republicans and Democrats alike will vote according to their sense of duty and their conscience.
"This is historic," explained Cannon. "We have a couple hundred years behind us, a little more than that. We're looking forward, I hope, to more than a couple hundred years. People are going to look back at this impeachment process they way we look back at Andrew Johnson's impeachment process. That one had some silly elements to it. This one is serious. If we have a decay in American society because people decide it's OK to lie in court, that will be tagged not just to this president who did it, but to those people who voted to not remove him from office and make him an example. Prior votes to now have all been votes in the context of posturing and procedure. The vote on impeachment is going to be a vote for history. You've got to be pretty brazen against your conscience in an environment like that."
Additional evidence on charges not related to the White House sex scandal have been presented to the House Judiciary Committee, but not by Starr. The evidence was turned over by Larry Klayman of Judicial Watch, an organization that has filed a number of lawsuits against Clinton. Klayman says he was recently offered $2 million by Clinton's legal staff if he would drop his efforts. He turned the offer down.
Once the hearings begin, Cannon, along with all committee members, will be able to question Starr when he appears to testify on Nov. 19. Will Cannon ask Starr why the House has not been presented with evidence regarding the other scandals Starr has investigated for over four years?
"I guarantee that question is going to be asked," said Cannon. "If nobody asks before it comes to me -- if I don't get it in the first time -- I'll get it the second round. I am sure he will answer that question. Now he may be evasive," he assured. "Historically we've been very careful to avoid getting Congress involved in criminal investigations, but the only office in the land that carries with it a distinction as to criminal law is the office of the presidency. It is not clear that you cannot prosecute a president for a crime while he is in office. But it is clear from the nature of the Constitution that the remedy is to cleanse the political process first. Get the man out. Solve it politically. Get him gone. And then proceed with the criminal activity," explained Cannon.
In a news conference to outline plans to try to complete the hearing process by the end of the year, House Judiciary Committee Chairman Henry Hyde said he believes committee members will ultimately put partisanship aside and vote their conscience.
Contrary to the fears of Hatch, Cannon and Hyde both believe that conscience will bring many Democrats to a point where they will ultimately vote for impeachment -- and removal.
"I can be an optimist," said Cannon. "I believe when confronted with the opportunity to vote conscience, people will tend to vote their conscience. So I think it doesn't make a lot of sense to say that the votes aren't there, and it wouldn't make sense for the president especially, to say that the votes aren't there.
"Now Hatch has always said he doesn't know people in the context of the big 'if'. 'If' there is not more information. But he's also said recently that he's been approached by at least one senator saying 'please understand that there are people who may well vote against this president for reasons of conscience.' So I say, go through the process and let people vote. Let them vote their conscience," declared Cannon.
"If Starr comes forward (with more evidence), I don't think he's going to surprise anybody with his information. There's some interesting information out there. And frankly I think that now is the time for Starr to come forward and say, 'This is what I have.' In those areas where he hasn't wrapped it up and put a bow on it, he ought to say, 'I have something that is not clean and clear, but this is what I have. We'll turn it over to you (Congress), and we're going to continue our investigation, but you can take it and use it for your political purposes.' This is, in the end, the way we clean our political system. So yeah, I'd like to see Starr come forward," said Cannon.
worldnetdaily.com |
