Salon Newsreal | Starr's lowest blow

A L S O+T O D A Y

Impeachment diary II
By Anonymous
While senators basked in the glow of Friday's bipartisan trial accord, both sides were already plotting to renew the war
(01/13/99)

Ebonics II
By Lee Hubbard
Oakland students' test scores are among the lowest in the state, but Oakland teachers press ahead with Mumia Abu Jamal teach-in
(01/13/99)

T A B L E+T A L K
Speaker Howdy Doody? What do you think of Livingston replacement Dennis Hastert? Get partisan in the Politics area of Table Talk

___________________
Want the dirt on kenneth Starr? Search barnesandnoble.com!
___________________

Portrait of a political "pit bull"
By Russ Baker
Rep. Dan Burton, who called President Clinton a "scumbag," has a few questions to answer about his own behavior
(12/22/98)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
R E C E N T L Y
Tainted witness
By Murray Waas
The Arkansas trooper who corroborated David Hale's story received payments from the American Spectator
(01/12/99)
Working class hero?
By Micah L. Sifry
Jesse Ventura will have to reconcile his millionaire libertarian views with his blue collar support
(01/11/99)
That wasn't foreplay, that was a four-poster!
By Lori Leibovich
'Don't act like a bully.' In a full-trial impeachment, the questions won't be for the squeamish
(01/08/99)
Back from the brink
By Joshua Micah Marshall
A Senate compromise on the impeachment trial ends the partisan bickering, for now
(01/08/99)
The culture of prosecution
By Bruce Shapiro
President Clinton is the victim of a tough-on-crime mentality that has trivialized the rights of the accused
(01/08/99)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Browse the
Newsreal Archives
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

spacer

STARR'S LOWEST BLOW | PAGE 1, 2
- - - - - - - - - -
But if not for Willey, why is Starr pursuing this single mother, sending FBI agents to probe into her son's adoption and finally threatening Steele herself with prison? The answer is buried in Paragraph 17 of Starr's indictment: Because in January 1998, months after she'd already told Newsweek the Willey story was false, "an attorney for President Clinton interviewed Defendant Steele at her home in Virginia." Shortly afterward, Steele provided the president's legal team with an affidavit repeating the recantation she'd already made to the press.
There you have it. Long before the Lewinsky story broke, Ken Starr and the impeachment faction convinced themselves that their Arkansas and Washington trawls were coming up empty only because the president's attorneys were acting like mob lawyers in "The Godfather," buying the silence of those with knowledge of supposed presidential wrongdoing, or delivering the Arkansas equivalent of a horse's head. This explained Webster Hubbell's and Susan McDougal's persistent refusal to implicate the Clintons in their own illegalities; it explained the failure of Whitewater, Filegate, the campaign finance investigations to produce anything resembling a smoking gun.
As the independent counsel himself noted in his final report, when Starr sought authority to include Lewinsky in his investigation, it was to prove that her lie in her Paula Jones deposition, too, had been purchased through the intercession of Vernon Jordan, Bettie Currie and other White House operatives. This presumed conspiracy is the central theory of the impeachment, and it is why the House Republicans were willing to charge Clinton with obstruction of justice in the Jones case -- even while voting down the far-more-convincing charge of presidential perjury in Clinton's Jones deposition.
The trouble is, of course, that this net of presidential influence-peddling has yet to be proven in a single instance. Webb Hubbell denies the White House has bought his silence. Monica Lewinsky says "nobody ever promised me a job or told me to lie."
Enter Julie Hiatt Steele. Starr's indictment notes portentously that when first approached by a lawyer working for Clinton counselor Bob Bennett, "Defendant Steele, upon advice of her attorney, decided not to sign the affidavit" saying Willey had asked her to lie. But "Sometime thereafter, Defendant Steele changed her mind."
In that change of mind -- in Steele's decision to supply the president's lawyers with an account of Willey's alleged duplicity -- lies the impeachment squad's conviction that she, too, is now part of the vast White House conspiracy to obstruct justice. Her affidavit in the Jones case makes up the first count of obstruction of justice in Starr's indictment.
But like so many other charges behind the Clinton case now before the Senate, the indictment of Steele contains more holes than connective tissue. The president's legal team only approached Steele after her retraction was noted in Newsweek, as Steele's attorney, Nancy Luque, points out. It's true Steele was uneasy about getting involved in the Jones case, but once she gave her affidavit she never wavered from her account. What's more -- and this is crucial considering that it is a linchpin of her indictment -- Clinton's legal team never even entered Steele's affidavit into evidence. She was never a witness in the Jones case. She's being charged with obstruction of justice for a statement that never even made it to the court clerk's office.
That's hardly the only dubious count in Starr's indictment. Incredibly, the independent counsel charges her for repeating her story on Larry King. It's as if the First Amendment did not exist. The indictment claims the Larry King interview is relevant because Steele sent a copy to the grand jury "without being asked in any way" -- when in fact, according to attorney Luque, the interview was sent in response to a subpoena. It's a mini-version of the "perjury trap" sprung against the president: First pressure Steele to submit an interview that's no business of the grand jury's, then indict her for submitting it. The indictment makes much of two acquaintances of Steele's, "John Doe No. 1" and "Jane Doe No. 1," to whom she supposedly repeated the Willey story. But even if that's true, it doesn't make Willey's story true or Steele's recantation false. It just means she spread gossip.
As with the Clinton impeachment case, there will no doubt be enough she-said/she-said elements to the charges against Steele to fill MSNBC's dead air for a month. But that does not change the singularly vindictive nature of her indictment.
And if to the impeachment squad Steele seems an integral part of the baroque tale of presidential obstruction, her indictment in fact fits into Starr's curious war on women. The long imprisonment of Susan McDougal; the coerced testimony of Lewinsky; the threats to Lewinsky's mother, Marcia Lewis, so similar to Starr's vicious attempt to threaten Steele's adoption; the long and fruitless attempt to indict Hillary Rodham Clinton for a variety of imagined malfeasances in Travelgate and the Rose billing scandal.
This is the pattern, the modus operandi at the center of the Senate's impeachment case, that lies behind the impeachment faction's persistent call for witnesses, witnesses, witnesses as Clinton's impeachment trial opens: Since there's no case against the president, threaten the women, subpoena the women, indict the women, until someone -- Monica, Bettie, Susan, Julie -- breaks.
SALON | Jan. 13, 1999
Bruce Shapiro is a legal affairs writer for the Nation and a frequent contributor to Salon.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
R E L A T E D_.S A L O N_.S T O R I E S

Slick Willey Before you cry too many tears for Kathleen Willey, consider the unfortunate brother and sister she fleeced.
By Bruce Shapiro
March 18, 1998
A feel for a good story Thank God we've got those notorious womanizers at "60 Minutes" making it safe for women like Kathleen Willey to speak up about sexual harassment.
By Carol Lloyd
March 17, 1998

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Become a Salon member. Click here.

A L S O+T O D A Y Impeachment diary II By Anonymous While senators basked in the glow of Friday's bipartisan trial accord, both sides were already plotting to renew the war (01/13/99) Ebonics II By Lee Hubbard Oakland students' test scores are among the lowest in the state, but Oakland teachers press ahead with Mumia Abu Jamal teach-in (01/13/99) T A B L E+T A L K Speaker Howdy Doody? What do you think of Livingston replacement Dennis Hastert? Get partisan in the Politics area of Table Talk ___________________ Want the dirt on kenneth Starr? Search barnesandnoble.com! ___________________ Portrait of a political "pit bull" By Russ Baker Rep. Dan Burton, who called President Clinton a "scumbag," has a few questions to answer about his own behavior (12/22/98) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - R E C E N T L Y Tainted witness By Murray Waas The Arkansas trooper who corroborated David Hale's story received payments from the American Spectator (01/12/99) Working class hero? By Micah L. Sifry Jesse Ventura will have to reconcile his millionaire libertarian views with his blue collar support (01/11/99) That wasn't foreplay, that was a four-poster! By Lori Leibovich 'Don't act like a bully.' In a full-trial impeachment, the questions won't be for the squeamish (01/08/99) Back from the brink By Joshua Micah Marshall A Senate compromise on the impeachment trial ends the partisan bickering, for now (01/08/99) The culture of prosecution By Bruce Shapiro President Clinton is the victim of a tough-on-crime mentality that has trivialized the rights of the accused (01/08/99) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Browse the Newsreal Archives - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
		STARR'S LOWEST BLOW \| PAGE 1, 2 - - - - - - - - - - But if not for Willey, why is Starr pursuing this single mother, sending FBI agents to probe into her son's adoption and finally threatening Steele herself with prison? The answer is buried in Paragraph 17 of Starr's indictment: Because in January 1998, months after she'd already told Newsweek the Willey story was false, "an attorney for President Clinton interviewed Defendant Steele at her home in Virginia." Shortly afterward, Steele provided the president's legal team with an affidavit repeating the recantation she'd already made to the press. There you have it. Long before the Lewinsky story broke, Ken Starr and the impeachment faction convinced themselves that their Arkansas and Washington trawls were coming up empty only because the president's attorneys were acting like mob lawyers in "The Godfather," buying the silence of those with knowledge of supposed presidential wrongdoing, or delivering the Arkansas equivalent of a horse's head. This explained Webster Hubbell's and Susan McDougal's persistent refusal to implicate the Clintons in their own illegalities; it explained the failure of Whitewater, Filegate, the campaign finance investigations to produce anything resembling a smoking gun. As the independent counsel himself noted in his final report, when Starr sought authority to include Lewinsky in his investigation, it was to prove that her lie in her Paula Jones deposition, too, had been purchased through the intercession of Vernon Jordan, Bettie Currie and other White House operatives. This presumed conspiracy is the central theory of the impeachment, and it is why the House Republicans were willing to charge Clinton with obstruction of justice in the Jones case -- even while voting down the far-more-convincing charge of presidential perjury in Clinton's Jones deposition. The trouble is, of course, that this net of presidential influence-peddling has yet to be proven in a single instance. Webb Hubbell denies the White House has bought his silence. Monica Lewinsky says "nobody ever promised me a job or told me to lie." Enter Julie Hiatt Steele. Starr's indictment notes portentously that when first approached by a lawyer working for Clinton counselor Bob Bennett, "Defendant Steele, upon advice of her attorney, decided not to sign the affidavit" saying Willey had asked her to lie. But "Sometime thereafter, Defendant Steele changed her mind." In that change of mind -- in Steele's decision to supply the president's lawyers with an account of Willey's alleged duplicity -- lies the impeachment squad's conviction that she, too, is now part of the vast White House conspiracy to obstruct justice. Her affidavit in the Jones case makes up the first count of obstruction of justice in Starr's indictment. But like so many other charges behind the Clinton case now before the Senate, the indictment of Steele contains more holes than connective tissue. The president's legal team only approached Steele after her retraction was noted in Newsweek, as Steele's attorney, Nancy Luque, points out. It's true Steele was uneasy about getting involved in the Jones case, but once she gave her affidavit she never wavered from her account. What's more -- and this is crucial considering that it is a linchpin of her indictment -- Clinton's legal team never even entered Steele's affidavit into evidence. She was never a witness in the Jones case. She's being charged with obstruction of justice for a statement that never even made it to the court clerk's office. That's hardly the only dubious count in Starr's indictment. Incredibly, the independent counsel charges her for repeating her story on Larry King. It's as if the First Amendment did not exist. The indictment claims the Larry King interview is relevant because Steele sent a copy to the grand jury "without being asked in any way" -- when in fact, according to attorney Luque, the interview was sent in response to a subpoena. It's a mini-version of the "perjury trap" sprung against the president: First pressure Steele to submit an interview that's no business of the grand jury's, then indict her for submitting it. The indictment makes much of two acquaintances of Steele's, "John Doe No. 1" and "Jane Doe No. 1," to whom she supposedly repeated the Willey story. But even if that's true, it doesn't make Willey's story true or Steele's recantation false. It just means she spread gossip. As with the Clinton impeachment case, there will no doubt be enough she-said/she-said elements to the charges against Steele to fill MSNBC's dead air for a month. But that does not change the singularly vindictive nature of her indictment. And if to the impeachment squad Steele seems an integral part of the baroque tale of presidential obstruction, her indictment in fact fits into Starr's curious war on women. The long imprisonment of Susan McDougal; the coerced testimony of Lewinsky; the threats to Lewinsky's mother, Marcia Lewis, so similar to Starr's vicious attempt to threaten Steele's adoption; the long and fruitless attempt to indict Hillary Rodham Clinton for a variety of imagined malfeasances in Travelgate and the Rose billing scandal. This is the pattern, the modus operandi at the center of the Senate's impeachment case, that lies behind the impeachment faction's persistent call for witnesses, witnesses, witnesses as Clinton's impeachment trial opens: Since there's no case against the president, threaten the women, subpoena the women, indict the women, until someone -- Monica, Bettie, Susan, Julie -- breaks. SALON \| Jan. 13, 1999 Bruce Shapiro is a legal affairs writer for the Nation and a frequent contributor to Salon. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - R E L A T E D_.S A L O N_.S T O R I E S Slick Willey Before you cry too many tears for Kathleen Willey, consider the unfortunate brother and sister she fleeced. By Bruce Shapiro March 18, 1998 A feel for a good story Thank God we've got those notorious womanizers at "60 Minutes" making it safe for women like Kathleen Willey to speak up about sexual harassment. By Carol Lloyd March 17, 1998 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Become a Salon member. Click here.