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 : Bill Clinton Scandal - SANITY CHECK -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Machaon who wrote (30977)1/29/1999 9:27:00 PM
From: sea_biscuit  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 67261
 
Another sad thing is the huge legal bills that these unfortunate people have to pay. Just look at what Currie and Steele have to undergo and the enormous legal bills that they have to deal with now...

Without any exaggeration, one can say that if your name is even peripherally linked with Clinton and his office, you can be "assured" that the blood-thirsty fiend, Ken Starr, will drive you into bankruptcy. And not only that, he will also drive you to the very edge of sanity, as Steele herself has mentioned in a TV interview.

Those of us who live hundreds of miles from both Little Rock, Arkansas, and Washington, DC, have to consider ourselves extremely lucky not to have fallen into the clutches of that crazed, rabid prosecutor, Ken Starr.



To: Machaon who wrote (30977)1/29/1999 9:38:00 PM
From: Les H  Respond to of 67261
 
That's a real thoughtful site of yours:

anusha.com

But then, affidavits written for Clinton are probably not worth the paper they're written on, no more than his representations about Social Security or anything else. He's already submitted one known false affidavit. The affidavit disputing Kathleen Willey's account is also suspect.



To: Machaon who wrote (30977)1/29/1999 10:00:00 PM
From: JBL  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 67261
 
Robert,

I pulled the following from the same site that you were pointing to.
I have no idea if this ABC News memo is real or not.

Verbatim ABC News memo follows:

From: Isham, Chris Sent: Tuesday, December 22, 1998 12:45 PM

To: Friedman, Paul E.; Dunlavey, Dennis; Murphy, Bob

Subject: Broaddrick

Forwarding a memo by Josh Fine which is a good summary of the
Juanita Broddrick (Jane Doe #5.) Her case MAY have tipped some
moderate Republicans to vote yes on impeachment and MAY be
introduced in the Senate proceedings.

Juanita Broaddrick was subpoenaed in the Paula Jones case. She
filed an affidavit that said "These allegations (that Clinton had made
unwelcome advances towards her) are untrue." The allegations are
that she met Clinton in 1979 when he was attorney general and that
he raped or assaulted her. She owned nursing homes in Northwest
Arkansas and was in Little Rock for a convention. Clinton met her
in the afternoon and they made plans to meet later that night. He
said the best place to meet was in her room (at the Camelot Hotel)
since that way no one would see them (he was, after all, married).

They then went up to her hotel room in Little Rock and evidently
had sex. It is unclear if he raped or assaulted her but that is the
allegation made by Phillip Yoakum. Yoakum is a Fayetteville man
who says Broaddrick told him in 1992 that she was raped by
Clinton in the late 70's. I interviewed Yoakum in March and found
him entirely uncredible. He had facts wrong, was a total
Clinton-hater, and his claims to being friends with Broaddrick are
untrue. The other person who supposedly knows about what took
place is Norma Rogers-Kelsay, a friend of Broaddrick's who went
to the convention with her in Little Rock and drove back with her to
Van Buren where they live). Tamara Lipper spoke with Rogers on
the phone in March. Rogers said that Yoakum was telling the truth.
She was with Broaddrick before and after the incident and said that
she was in "quite bad shape after."

In 1991 Broaddrick was at a nursing home convention in Little
Rock and a man pulled her out of a meeting (this is all according to
Rogers-Kelsay). The man took her to Bill Clinton and he apologized
for hurting her and asked if there was anything he could do. She
didn't understand at the time why he had taken that step but soon
realized the real reason after he announced his candidacy for
President a few months later. In the 1992 campaign these rumors
began to circulate and Sheffield Nelson, a longtime Arkansas
Clinton-hater, tried to get her to come forward. She did not.
Yoakum evidently was at a meeting with Rogers and Broaddrick
where they discussed the incident and whether or not Broaddrick
should talk publicly about it. Evidently Broaddrick was worried no
one would believe her (similar to what happened with Gennifer
Flowers).

That was the last anyone heard of her until she was subpoenaed in
the Jones case. Apparently Lisa Myers went to Van Buren and
spoke with Broaddrick about her giving an interview. I also spoke
with Broaddrick. She made it abundantly clear that she had no
interest in her name getting out and didn't want to talk about it. She
also made it clear that she was not denying that something had
happened.

Last month the Schippers group sent two investigators to talk to
her. One of them was Diana Woznicki, a Chicago police sergeant
who is on loan to the investigation. We're not sure who the second
person was. The conversation took place at the office of
Broaddrick's attorney, Bill Walters, in Greenwood, AR. Walters
says that the ground rules for the interview was that there would be
no discussion of the underlying incident. The only topic that could
be discussed was the possibility of obstruction. According to
Walters, there is no obstruction despite the claims in the Yoakum
letter. The Yoakum letter claims that Broaddrick's husband Dave
said he was going to get a few favors from Clinton for keeping his
wife silent.

Late last week Republicans began to stream over to the Ford
building to look at the materials. According to a source of mine
there were about two dozen members who went to look at the
material on Thursday and Friday. Many Republicans were talking
up the new material as evidence that could come up at trial because
it would show a pattern and practice of behavior (paying off or
influencing women to keep quiet). According to Rep. Inglis under
federal rule of evidence 441(B) something showing a pattern or
practice can be admissible in a trial. But it is unclear if Rehnquist
would rule this admissible since it isn't a typical trial.

There is some question whether there is actually new evidence from
the Woznicki interview or members are just seeing the
Yoakum/Rogers evidence for the first time and consider it new. The
big question is what does Broaddrick say. If she won't talk about
the incident then there is only Yoakum and Rogers to show that she
was raped/assaulted. If she won't say she was obstructed it would
be hard to prove that. Still, the potential that a rape charge could be leveled at the President makes the story one that can't be totally
ignored.

I'm told by two senior Republican members of Congress that
Stephen Buyer (IN), Jim Ramstad (MN), and Steve Chabot (OH)
were encouraging their colleagues to look at the materials. I'm also
told George Radanovich (CA) took a special interest in the
Broaddrick interview. Rep. Hayworth told me on background that
the materials make Clinton out to be a "sexual predator."

There were rumblings from some Democrats (none of whom have
seen the materials) that there was pressure put on undecided
Republicans to vote for an article of impeachment based on the new
materials. But two of the members rumored to be swayed, John
Porter of Illinois and Jay Dickey of Arkansas told Ariane and I that
they never went to view the materials.

Call me if any of this isn't clear. I've put down some links to a
couple helpful documents: Broaddrick's affidavit

Yoakum's Letter



To: Machaon who wrote (30977)1/30/1999 3:23:00 AM
From: JBL  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 67261
 
Robert,

Things are not looking good for Clinton. Sorry.

The New York Observer
1/29/99 by Philip Weiss

The Secret Sex Addict Speech Dick Morris Offered Clinton

by Philip Weiss

Like all addictions, impeachment has 12 steps toward emotional clarity. These were mine:

1. Is Hillary Depressed? Hillary Rodham Clinton is scheduled to speak to the National Abortion and
Reproductive Rights Action League on the 26th anniversary of Roe v. Wade. It is at the same time that
the question-and-answer phase of the impeachment trial is to begin in the Senate, and I choose Hillary.
The First Lady wears a gray suit and is obviously depressed. She may as well be speaking to a funeral.
Her voice is a monotone. She does not move her body at all for more than 30 minutes, merely moves her
head in a practiced manner from one side of the audience to another. Dip to the lectern to get a line of
text. Look up left. Look right. Open eyes to make some sort of connection. Dip back to lectern.

Her text is laced with bitterness about men. She speaks with anger of visiting pregnant girls who have been
abandoned by the fathers, of the stories these young lied-to women told her about their men—"with a
straight face," she says cuttingly. If only boys and men would think about what they are doing before they
had sex, Hillary says, then goes on to denounce the preoccupation with "sexual prowess" in the media and
among sports figures. The speech seems somewhat castrating.

The 2,000 people in the audience, mostly women, absorb the depth of her feeling. The applause is
subdued. No one calls out for her to run for Senate.

2. Z-z-z-z-z-z-z. Later, as I enter the Senate periodical gallery, the guard at the door takes my elbow.
"Do me a favor, wake that guy up." He points at a tall reporter in the second row. Not relishing the
assignment, I say, "Is he asleep?" A second guard comes over to confer. "I don't think he's sleeping, I just
saw his jaw move."

I sit next to the reporter, who is in fact sound asleep, and pretend not to notice him as I watch the
President's private lawyer, David Kendall, speak, soporifically, on the floor. The guard must come down
and, squeezing in front of a row of people to get to us, rouse the man. The reporter denies that he was
asleep. They argue and the guard retreats. The reporter spends the next half-hour trying to win the
argument retroactively by maintaining his sleepy posture even as he mocks attentiveness.

3. Oedipus at the Senate. Rumpled, cerebral, white-haired Senator Carl Levin of Michigan reminds me of
my father, and I get into an argument with him during a little press conference he gives outside the Senate
floor.

He says that the House managers have misrepresented Vernon Jordan's motives for finding a job for
Monica Lewinsky. He has uncovered a fact that contradicts one of their points.

I break in. "Let's say you're right. They got this point wrong. Still, what is a reasonable person supposed
to conclude, that this was routine? How often have you called the chairman of General Motors?"

My Oedipal outburst frightens old Senator Levin. He raises his hand and becomes flustered, then goes on,
ignoring me. Under his arm are stacks of photocopies of the critical documents. Pathetically, he hands
them out to the reporters.

It is simply obvious that Vernon Jordan was putting out supreme effort for Monica Lewinsky. Ronald
Perelman testified that in Mr. Jordan's 12 years on Revlon Inc.'s board, he only called him once on behalf
of a job candidate: a "terrific young girl," Monica Lewinsky. Mr. Jordan's call to Mr. Perelman came
immediately after a five-minute conversation with Ms. Lewinsky, who called him from the residence of her
mother's then-fiancé in New York, at about the time that she was filing her false affidavit in the Paula
Jones case.

After talking to Ron Perelman, Vernon Jordan called Monica Lewinsky back to tell her he had made the
call. The next day, when she got the job, she called him and spent seven minutes on the phone with him,
celebrating her success, then an hour later he called her and they had a three-minute conversation in which
he says he urged her to accept that $40,000 was good pay.

It is one of the great wastes of this process: critical minds like Charles Schumer's and Carl Levin's turned
by the Clinton defense into bales of hay.

4. Going Mad With Lindsey Graham. I walk out of the Capitol with Lindsey Graham, the Republican
House manager. A small man from a rural district of South Carolina who wears Brooks Brothers ties, he
is the Frank Capra figure in the drama, soulful, emotional, sincere. People swarm around him, even
Democrats, to urge him on or to fence with him. Representative Graham has a pastoral air. He talks about
"the sins you carry and the sins I carry." He offers moral instruction.

"Listen up now. Listen to what I'm trying to say," he says, putting his foot up on a marble sill. "Our
President engaged in serious criminal wrongdoing. And to doubt that that occurred is devastating to the
people of the country."

I walk to the Longworth Building with Mr. Graham. I say, "I told a friend how disturbed I am about the
fact that Clinton called Monica Lewinsky a ‘stalker,' and he said, ‘Yeah, that's the right wing's ace in the
hole.' And I was shocked by that. I don't understand why it isn't a liberal's ace in the hole."

"Yeah, he turned on a consensual lover," Mr. Graham says, shaking his head. "It was the meanest thing he
did."

Lindsay Graham and I have become maddened.

5. Girl Talk With My Mother-in-Law. My in-laws have tickets to see the impeachment, and that night I
meet them back at the hotel. My father-in-law is lying on the bed, my mother-in-law is watching the news.
My in-laws are unimpressed by the Senate décor. My mother-in-law says it reminds her of just another
men's club.

I tell her my sense that Hillary is depressed. "Did you notice at the State of the Union that Hillary didn't
have her hair done?" she says. "It was odd to me that for a big night like that, she wouldn't have put
herself together. I agree with you."

We go out to dinner and get back to the hotel at 10. On C-Span 2, Hillary is giving her speech again, and
I call down to my in-laws' room. The camera picks up stuff I hadn't seen in the hall. When Hillary is
finished, she turns from the microphone and gives a big short sigh before embracing Kate Michelman,
president of the National Abortion and Reproductive Rights Action League. "Kate, I put your glasses
there," Hillary says, motioning at a shelf on the lectern, and saying that, she opens her mouth with joy. It is
her only gesture of pure pleasure.

I wonder whether maybe Hillary has hit bottom. That she is doing a spiritual inventory of all the lies, not so
different from Lindsey Graham's spiritual inventory.

6. I Wake Up in Anger. In the morning, I compose a mental list of the issues that have maddened me,
thinking to reel them off to my mother-in-law, a liberal:

• Why, in the Nixon era, it was a glory to be on his "enemies list." While to be against Bill Clinton is to be
classed a "hater" and vilified in polite society;

• Why it was a heroic thing that the law firm Williams & Connolly and The Washington Post teamed up on
Watergate, but that when conservative newspaperman Richard Mellon Scaife underwrites investigations of
a President he doesn't like, it's a conspiracy;

• Why right-wing reporter Christopher Ruddy can be harassed by the Internal Revenue Service under Mr.
Clinton and no one but The Wall Street Journal even notices;

• Why the passive media treat the 900 F.B.I. files as a joke—accepting Mr. Clinton's "bureaucratic snafu"
explanation—even as Linda Tripp testifies that some of the files were apparently used against the fired
Travel Office employees in 1993, and Dick Morris testifies that they are evidence of a paranoid style in
the White House, statements that go wholly unexamined in the press;

• How it is that a House committee report accused Cheryl Mills, the White House deputy counsel, of
perjury for false statements to the committee about the White House database of contributors, and in
questioning Ms. Mills last summer, Mr. Starr's deputies all but suggested she had lied to them about when
she first learned about the Lewinsky situation, from her close friend Vernon Jordan, yet these issues are
only raised by The Washington Times, while Newsweek celebrates Ms. Mills as a "rising star."

• How it came to pass that, following signs of discomfort on the Upper West Side over its harsh stance on
the President, the New York Times editorial page takes a sudden, Pravda-ish turn to the conventional
liberal position at the end of 1998, which Sam Donaldson finds a source of amusement on This Week, but
which goes wholly unexamined in intellectual circles;

• Why The Times devotes such investigative resources to the continuing examination of how the Paula
Jones suit flourished, secretly, in a cabal of conservative lawyers, while failing to describe to its readers
evidence contained in the Starr files of potential criminal matters, for instance, White House deputy
assistant Marsha Scott's patent lies to the grand jury about the Administration's treatment of Webster
Hubbell; the numerous discrepancies between Vernon Jordan's sworn testimony and Monica Lewinsky's
(we breakfasted at the Park Hyatt, she says; we never breakfasted, said he; the breakfast turns up on his
American Express bill); or the release to the media of Linda Tripp's Pentagon file, matters that are only
taken up in The American Spectator and other journals.

I go down to breakfast at the hotel and decide not to go into it. We talk about Hillary's speech. My
mother-in-law says, "Did you notice the sigh that Hillary gave when she turned away from the
microphone? It was as if she was saying, ‘Ahhh, that's over with.'"

7. I Discover Lindsay Graham's a Lefty. On Saturday, Jan. 23, the House managers fly Ms. Lewinsky in
from Los Angeles, and no one is sleeping in the periodical gallery. No, it is all but empty as Henry Hyde
rises to warn the Democrats, "There are issues of transcendent importance that you have to be willing to
lose your office over."

One of Henry Hyde's principles is equal justice under the law, but another is abortion. This is the problem
with the radical Republicans' martyrology, it seems so off the rails. Yes, they have taken a moral stand,
but they are a group of white men associated with a moral cause, abortion, that seems to the great
majority of Americans so morally ambiguous that it must be resolved in favor of a woman's right to
privacy, sexual and medical. Have the privacy issues of the Clinton case escaped them?

I lean over the sill to look down at the black, Nike-swoosh-shaped managers' table and notice Lindsey
Graham's curious way of taking notes. He is a left-hander, and turns his cheap legal pad so that the long
side is parallel to his chest, then writes in a vertical line going toward his chest, like Chinese characters.
What an iconoclast.

Mr. Graham rises to make the wisest statement the House managers have made: that if he were a Senator,
he would have to get down on his knees before deciding that these crimes are high crimes.

8. Pity the House Managers. For days after, poor Mr. Graham is defensive about his comments. The
House managers now occupy a free-floating zone of acrid political death. They know it but are still in
denial. Few reporters come to stake them out. The marble halls feel like a sarcophagus in which they are
slowly dying, becoming martyr statues. In the midst of interviews, they suddenly look at you and say,
blankly, "How did we do today?" with the drained foxhole look of death about them. I try to give them
chipper answers, because their arguments on the facts of the case are wholly convincing to me, and
reasonable—also because I pity them, remembering that their task appeared more innocent and
adventurous when they took it on, like joining Shackleton's trip to Antarctica.

9. I Become Bill Buckley. Watching 96-year-old Strom Thurmond creak into the Senate one morning, I
find him, for the first time in my life, a source of inspiration rather than hatred, and when I get back to New
York I realize that I am no longer young, I am now aging. So far, I have been climbing the hill of life; now,
I am going down the hill. My wife comes home for dinner and I tell her this. She agrees.

We drink a lot of wine over dinner, then I stand on several volumes of the Starr documents like a
soapbox, telling her some of the intellectual dishonesties that madden me. Have I lost my mind? I say. My
wife says not. But she wonders whether I am more like Norman Podhoretz than William Buckley, in this
sense: that when Norman Podhoretz underwent his middle-aged break over political-intellectual matters,
she says, he was no longer able to take meals with his old friends, the feelings were simply too strong, the
loss of respect. Whereas merry WASPy Mr. Buckley breaks bread happily with his enemies, so
separated is he from his emotional life. Are you a Buckley or a Podhoretz?

10. Betting Against Clinton Is a Sucker's Game. I meet my friend John, who thinks I'm a nut, at a party
and in a demonstration of honor say I owe him $50. Why, he says. He has forgotten that a year ago, in a
hut in the Adirondacks, he gave me 3-to-1 odds that Mr. Clinton would still be in office a year hence. My
wife's boss is nowhere so genteel. On her return following New Year's holiday, he came to her, palm out,
demanding his $200 on a similar bet for 1998. Then he says he will take her side of the bet: Mr. Clinton
will be gone before 1999 is through. But you have to stake $1,000. My wife loses her nerve.

11. Dick Morris' Amazing Advice. I feel desperation at the idea that it is going to be over and stay up till
1 A.M. reading the Starr papers, the Dick Morris section, where he describes his belief that "secret
police" at the White House leaked confidential information to the National Enquirer about matters he had
confessed about his sex life to an Administration official when he was hired at the White House years
before.

A year ago, at the President's urging, Mr. Morris did his famous poll about America's attitudes, using a
Melbourne, Fla., research firm. To keep it secret, he asked the firm not even to print out the findings, and
he swallowed the $2,000 cost. In the poll, Mr. Morris, who had told Mr. Clinton that they were both sex
addicts, composed a speech the President could give to save himself. Here it is:

"For many, many years I have been personally flawed and have had sexual relations outside of my
marriage. This has caused Hillary great pain and I have tried and tried to curb my behavior as I saw the
pain it caused her. After I became President, I was determined to mend my ways. For the most part, I
did, but sometimes I fell short and gave into temptation. I did, in fact, have sexual relations with a
23-year-old woman named Monica Lewinsky while I've been President. I regret my behavior more than I
can say. I apologize for it. I take responsibility for it. I wish I were a better man and better able to cope
with the pressures of life and work, and I am going to redouble my efforts to walk a straight line. When
the allegations first surfaced, I did, indeed, lie about them and urge Monica to lie. I was wrong and I am
sorry for it. I am especially sorry for the pain I have caused my wife and daughter. If the American people
want me to step down as President, I will do so. With a heavy heart, but I will do so. If they can forgive
me and want me to continue to lead our great nation, I'll do that, too. I've tried to be a good President
and I think I've succeeded. I've tried to be a good husband, and I'm afraid I've sometimes failed. As
President, as a repentant sinner and as a Christian, I ask your forgiveness, God's forgiveness and my wife
and daughter's forgiveness. My future is in your hands, my fellow Americans."

Dick Morris' notes indicate that 47 percent of respondents said that if the President gave that speech, they
would want him out of office, while 43 percent said they would want him to stay. Mr. Morris called Bill
Clinton with the results, then read the President his imagined speech. "I was sort of waiting for him to
interrupt me and say, ‘But that isn't true,' or ‘That goes too far,' or something like that, and he was silent
throughout the whole thing," Mr. Morris said.

12. The Shape of Things to Come. Eve MacSweeney, an editor at Harper's Bazaar, sends me an e-mail
that says, "couldn't e you back from england as friend in hospital and everything went pear-shaped." I call
to ask about the phrase. She tells me that "pear-shaped" is the reigning metaphor in England now. Things
are going pear-shaped. They say it in the financial district when a stock goes bad. They say it in W11
about a marriage. Ms. MacSweeney says the term resonates because English women are frequently
referred to as being pear-shaped, the men in England being buttless, but she and I agree that when the
phrase gets here—the land of the aging, big-butted male—it will have wider resonance.

I think of when that other Anglicism, "at the end of the day," came here a few years ago, landing in New
York. The House managers use the phrase "at the end of the day" over and over again, summing up their
case on the Senate floor. Now we know what the end of the day looks like.