Salon | Newsreal: Advantage, Starr? page 2

T H E
C L I N T O N
C R I S I S
bell hooks, Lillian Rubin and Clinton biographers analyze the First Couple
By Camille Peri and Lori Leibovich
Clinton's sexual hypocrisy
By Christopher Hitchens
If Clinton falls, will he take the Democrats with him?
By David Corn
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
A full list of articles

R E C E N T L Y
Convicted assassin
By Jeff Stein
"I wanted to shoot the CIA director"
(01/22/98)
What's on the tapes
By Jonathan Broder
Details of the sex tapes that may sink the president.
(01/22/98)
JFK wannabe
By Camille Paglia
Salon's columnist comments on the sexual politics of the Clinton White House.
(01/22/98)
Unsinkable Bill
By Alexander Cockburn
The president's latest "end" is greatly exaggerated
(01/22/98)
Horowitz: It's his character, stupid
Beyond the Beltway reactions
(01/22/98)
Is Clinton that reckless?
By Andrew Ross
We're about to witness either the end of the president -- or of his enemies
(01/21/98)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Browse the
Newsreal Archives
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

spacer

Advantage, Starr? PAGE 2 OF 2
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Sources close to the investigation said Starr sought to expand his probe into Lewinsky's allegations because he sensed a "pattern of obstruction" of justice involving the president and Jordan. Starr has long maintained that the main reason why the Whitewater investigation has dragged on for so long is White House stonewalling.
One of Starr's only convictions was of former Deputy Attorney General Webster Hubbell, sentenced to two years in jail for embezzling money from the Rose Law Firm in Little Rock, Ark., where he and Hillary Clinton were once partners. But Starr failed to win Hubbell's cooperation in further indictments and suspects that hush money was funneled to Hubbell through Jordan and Revlon Inc., where Jordan serves on the board. Both Hubbell and Jordan have denied the allegations. Last week, Starr's investigators learned that Jordan tried to get Lewinsky a job at Revlon, triggering the "pattern of obstruction" allegation made by Starr.
Despite the swiftness of his moves, even Republicans are concerned about whether Starr will resolve the case quickly. "Now that this thing is in play, you can't just having it hanging around," Gray said. "There needs to be a quick resolution of the truth or falsity of these charges, and I'm talking about days or weeks, not months."
On Friday, lawyers for Paula Jones, also trying to establish a pattern in President Clinton's behavior, had planned to depose Lewinsky and ask her if she ever had an affair with the president. Lewinsky already has provided a sworn affidavit saying she did not, and according to legal sources was going to refuse to testify, invoking her Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination.
But in a late development Thursday, Judge Susan Webber Wright announced the deposition in the Jones case had been postponed "indefinitely." According to former federal prosecutor Joseph DiGenova, the delay came at the behest of Starr.
"At this point, he doesn't want people having contact with her who might attempt to influence her in any way," said DiGenova, referring to Clinton attorneys who would be present at the deposition. "People who might frighten her by their presence, by their scowls, by all sorts of things."
At some point, Starr will have to allow Jones' lawyers to depose Lewinsky. If she then invokes her Fifth Amendment right, or does so at a grand jury summoned by Starr, then he has a number of options. He could indict Lewinsky for perjury, citing her statements in her original affidavit and the fact that she was now refusing to confirm or deny that statement.
More likely, these experts said, is the possibility that Starr will offer Lewinsky immunity from such charges, in the hope that she would testify about what she said on the tapes. Investigators say Starr is particularly interested in questioning Lewinsky about one taped conversation in which she appears to be coaching Tripp on how to change her own previous remarks if deposed by Jones' lawyers about an alleged sexual encounter in 1993 between Clinton and White House staffer Kathleen Willey.
In August of that year, Tripp told Newsweek, she had seen Willey emerge from the Oval Office with her make-up smudged and her clothing askew and that Willey had told her she had just had a sexual encounter with the president. On Thursday, Newsweek reported that Lewinsky, working from a legalistic-sounding list of "talking points," gave instructions to Tripp about changing her account. According to Newsweek, Lewinsky can be heard instructing Tripp to say that "what she thought happened didn't happen" and that she now believes that Willey smudged her make-up and untucked her blouse herself.
Under this scenario, Starr also would be likely to ask Lewinsky to waive her attorney-client privilege with her former lawyer, Fred Carter, whose services were reportedly arranged by Jordan. Starr could then question her about how Carter came to represent her, what advice he gave her and, most important, who drew up the list of "talking points" that she read to Tripp. With the waiver of the attorney-client privilege, Starr also could call Carter before the grand jury for questioning.
If Lewinsky decides to stick to her original claim on the affidavit that she had no sexual relationship with the president and that all of her claims on the tapes were lies, experts say Starr, armed with the tapes and Tripp's testimony, would probably indict Lewinsky for perjury and suborning of perjury, claiming that she was lying in the affidavit.
"I strongly doubt she's going to go through that," said DiGenova. "It doesn't serve her interests to get indicted for perjury when she can cut a deal and get this thing behind her as quickly as possible."
What's next for Starr once he's through with Lewinsky?
"Ultimately, you run into the question of what you do once you've got all the facts," Gray said. "What Starr should do is develop everything he can and then make it public. Let the court of public opinion deal with it. And hopefully, he will do that very quickly."
SALON | Jan. 23, 1998
Jonathan Broder is Salon's regular Washington correspondent.
Discuss the presidential sex scandal in Table Talk.

T H E C L I N T O N C R I S I S bell hooks, Lillian Rubin and Clinton biographers analyze the First Couple By Camille Peri and Lori Leibovich Clinton's sexual hypocrisy By Christopher Hitchens If Clinton falls, will he take the Democrats with him? By David Corn - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - A full list of articles R E C E N T L Y Convicted assassin By Jeff Stein "I wanted to shoot the CIA director" (01/22/98) What's on the tapes By Jonathan Broder Details of the sex tapes that may sink the president. (01/22/98) JFK wannabe By Camille Paglia Salon's columnist comments on the sexual politics of the Clinton White House. (01/22/98) Unsinkable Bill By Alexander Cockburn The president's latest "end" is greatly exaggerated (01/22/98) Horowitz: It's his character, stupid Beyond the Beltway reactions (01/22/98) Is Clinton that reckless? By Andrew Ross We're about to witness either the end of the president -- or of his enemies (01/21/98) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Browse the Newsreal Archives - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
		Advantage, Starr? PAGE 2 OF 2 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Sources close to the investigation said Starr sought to expand his probe into Lewinsky's allegations because he sensed a "pattern of obstruction" of justice involving the president and Jordan. Starr has long maintained that the main reason why the Whitewater investigation has dragged on for so long is White House stonewalling. One of Starr's only convictions was of former Deputy Attorney General Webster Hubbell, sentenced to two years in jail for embezzling money from the Rose Law Firm in Little Rock, Ark., where he and Hillary Clinton were once partners. But Starr failed to win Hubbell's cooperation in further indictments and suspects that hush money was funneled to Hubbell through Jordan and Revlon Inc., where Jordan serves on the board. Both Hubbell and Jordan have denied the allegations. Last week, Starr's investigators learned that Jordan tried to get Lewinsky a job at Revlon, triggering the "pattern of obstruction" allegation made by Starr. Despite the swiftness of his moves, even Republicans are concerned about whether Starr will resolve the case quickly. "Now that this thing is in play, you can't just having it hanging around," Gray said. "There needs to be a quick resolution of the truth or falsity of these charges, and I'm talking about days or weeks, not months." On Friday, lawyers for Paula Jones, also trying to establish a pattern in President Clinton's behavior, had planned to depose Lewinsky and ask her if she ever had an affair with the president. Lewinsky already has provided a sworn affidavit saying she did not, and according to legal sources was going to refuse to testify, invoking her Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination. But in a late development Thursday, Judge Susan Webber Wright announced the deposition in the Jones case had been postponed "indefinitely." According to former federal prosecutor Joseph DiGenova, the delay came at the behest of Starr. "At this point, he doesn't want people having contact with her who might attempt to influence her in any way," said DiGenova, referring to Clinton attorneys who would be present at the deposition. "People who might frighten her by their presence, by their scowls, by all sorts of things." At some point, Starr will have to allow Jones' lawyers to depose Lewinsky. If she then invokes her Fifth Amendment right, or does so at a grand jury summoned by Starr, then he has a number of options. He could indict Lewinsky for perjury, citing her statements in her original affidavit and the fact that she was now refusing to confirm or deny that statement. More likely, these experts said, is the possibility that Starr will offer Lewinsky immunity from such charges, in the hope that she would testify about what she said on the tapes. Investigators say Starr is particularly interested in questioning Lewinsky about one taped conversation in which she appears to be coaching Tripp on how to change her own previous remarks if deposed by Jones' lawyers about an alleged sexual encounter in 1993 between Clinton and White House staffer Kathleen Willey. In August of that year, Tripp told Newsweek, she had seen Willey emerge from the Oval Office with her make-up smudged and her clothing askew and that Willey had told her she had just had a sexual encounter with the president. On Thursday, Newsweek reported that Lewinsky, working from a legalistic-sounding list of "talking points," gave instructions to Tripp about changing her account. According to Newsweek, Lewinsky can be heard instructing Tripp to say that "what she thought happened didn't happen" and that she now believes that Willey smudged her make-up and untucked her blouse herself. Under this scenario, Starr also would be likely to ask Lewinsky to waive her attorney-client privilege with her former lawyer, Fred Carter, whose services were reportedly arranged by Jordan. Starr could then question her about how Carter came to represent her, what advice he gave her and, most important, who drew up the list of "talking points" that she read to Tripp. With the waiver of the attorney-client privilege, Starr also could call Carter before the grand jury for questioning. If Lewinsky decides to stick to her original claim on the affidavit that she had no sexual relationship with the president and that all of her claims on the tapes were lies, experts say Starr, armed with the tapes and Tripp's testimony, would probably indict Lewinsky for perjury and suborning of perjury, claiming that she was lying in the affidavit. "I strongly doubt she's going to go through that," said DiGenova. "It doesn't serve her interests to get indicted for perjury when she can cut a deal and get this thing behind her as quickly as possible." What's next for Starr once he's through with Lewinsky? "Ultimately, you run into the question of what you do once you've got all the facts," Gray said. "What Starr should do is develop everything he can and then make it public. Let the court of public opinion deal with it. And hopefully, he will do that very quickly." SALON \| Jan. 23, 1998 Jonathan Broder is Salon's regular Washington correspondent. Discuss the presidential sex scandal in Table Talk.