Time: Sun Jun 29 15:33:27 1997 by primenet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id PAA08134; Sun, 29 Jun 1997 15:30:27 -0700 (MST) by usr07.primenet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id PAA19205; Sun, 29 Jun 1997 15:30:20 -0700 (MST) Date: Sun, 29 Jun 1997 15:28:40 -0700 To: (Recipient list suppressed) From: Paul Andrew Mitchell [address in tool bar] Subject: SLS: Safire: COURT v. CLINTONS (fwd) <snip> > >[not to be used for commercial purposes] > > >June 29, 1997 > >ESSAY / by William Safire > >"Court v. Clintons" > >LONDON--All over the world, the prurient interest >is battling the public interest. > >Here in Britain, when the new Tory leader named >Cecil Parkinson to be chairman of the bedraggled >Conservative Party, the press reported him finally >released from "the sin bin." This recollection >of a 15-year-old affair, using a hockey metaphor, >seemed unduly unforgiving. > >In Israel, a TV interviewer provoked Sara Netanyahu, >the Prime Minister's wife, into an unfortunate >outburst by asking about her husband's prior infidelity. >This nosiness struck many as excessive. > >In Russia, Minister of Justice Valentin Kovalyov >was embarrassed by a video purportedly showing >him cavorting in a sauna with three naked women. >Public reaction: not to castigate the minister >but to wonder what combination of gangsters and >journalists was out to get him. > >In the U.S., a report that investigators for the >Independent Counsel asked Arkansas state troopers >about Clinton liaisons provided Democrats with >an excuse to attack Kenneth Starr for invasion >of privacy and to call for an end to his investigation. > >In this global orgy of first titillating and then >condemning prurient interest, legitimate lines >of inquiry are obscured. That's why Americans have >not focused on last week's most significant development >in the prosecutors' case against the Clintons. > >For three years, the Office of White House Counsel >has conspired with a score of private attorneys >and Democratic counsel in Congressional committees >to delay and frustrate the working of Whitewater >and Filegate justice. > >This Clinton Stonewall Brigade bought a full year's >delay by hiding notes with a spurious claim of >lawyer-client privilege, then recently sought another >year's delay by taking the claim to the Supreme >Court. > >This was a huge gamble, but the odds were good. >If the Clintons could get the high court--which >traditionally gives great weight to Presidential >requests--to take the case, argument would not >begin until the fall and the case not decided until >next spring. Meanwhile the Clinton witnesses could >hang tough and stymie the investigation. > >Moreover, there was the chance that the Court could >decide on some halfway privilege that would allow >the stonewalling to continue. > >Downside risk: that the Court would refuse even >to consider the Clinton appeal, letting stand the >stern judgment against any privilege by the Eighth >Circuit Court of Appeals. > >And then the case would proceed all too speedily. > >That Clinton worst-case scenario is what happened. >In rebuffing the President's outrageous claim, >the Court sent a signal that it would not be a >party to his delay strategy. The subpoenaed notes >were at last produced. > >But the significance is not merely in these particular >notes taken by taxpayer-paid lawyers and so long >wrongfully concealed. The Court action gives prosecutors >a green light to get--without delay--all the >plans for obfuscation, manipulation and information- >sharing among subjects and targets of the investigation. > >This includes grand jury testimony to be taken >from a parade of White House Counsel from Bernard >Nussbaum to Lloyd Cutler to Abner Mikva to Jack >Quinn (especially Quinn) and present Counsel Charles >Ruff. > >Recollections can be refreshed by notes, diaries >and logs withheld for years by some of these unprivileged >lawyers and their assistants, including William >Kennedy 3d. The 1994 plan to "monitor" the investigation >mapped out by Jane Sherburne deserves sworn elaboration. > >Counsel Bruce Lindsey's work-product and testimony >should be of interest now that the claim of privilege >has been exposed as a sham. And not just on Whitewater; >the tight-lipped Clinton confidant was present >at the 1995 meeting with James Riady when the President >personally decided that John Huang, the longtime >Riady employee assigned to a top-secret job in >the Department of Commerce, would be reassigned >to the Democratic Finance Committee. > >Even the communications between White House Counsel >and those helping block Congressional investigations >may now be accessible. > >The White House lost its high-risk gamble. The >Supreme Court decided not to be suckered into a >strategy of delay. No wonder Clinton defenders >are venting their outrage at Kenneth Starr. > > >Copyright 1997 The New York Times Company > > >-------------------------------------------------------------- > <snip> ======================================================================== Paul Andrew Mitchell : Counselor at Law, federal witness B.A., Political Science, UCLA; M.S., Public Administration, U.C. Irvine tel: (520) 320-1514: machine; fax: (520) 320-1256: 24-hour/day-night email: [address in tool bar] : using Eudora Pro 3.0.2 on 586 CPU website: http://www.supremelaw.com : visit the Supreme Law Library now ship to: c/o 2509 N. Campbell, #1776 : this is free speech, at its best Tucson, Arizona state : state zone, not the federal zone Postal Zone 85719/tdc : USPS delays first class w/o this As agents of the Most High, we came here to establish justice. We shall not leave, until our mission is accomplished and justice reigns eternal. ======================================================================== [This text formatted on-screen in Courier 11, non-proportional spacing.]
Return to Table of Contents for
Supreme Law School: E-mail