T A B L E+T A L K Steve Forbes? Newt Gingrich?? Orrin Hatch??? Nominate your GOP candidate for president in 2000, in Social Issues D A I L Y+Q U O T E I want my $35,000 Biedermeier, and I want it now! R E C E N T L Y Gays and dogs By Daniel Reitz If Maine voters think gays shouldn't have any more rights than dogs, then maybe gays shouldn't be paying taxes (02/13/98) The heart of the matter By Geoff Shandler What love has joined, no man, not even a scientist, can rend asunder (02/13/98) It's the leaks, stupid! By Joe Conason The unholy alliance between Kenneth Starr's office and the media (02/12/98) Blowback By Jonathan Broder Are journalists now fair game in the sex scandal wars? (02/12/98) The Reich stuff? By Andrew Ross President Clinton's former Labor secretary thinks his old boss is off course -- but not in the way Kenneth Starr thinks (02/11/98) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Browse the Newsreal Archives - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
		THE NEW YORK TIMES | PAGE 2 OF 5 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - But the more you look at Gerth and Labaton's story, the more questions it raises. For example, it's not at all clear that such a "private meeting" between the president and Lewinsky actually took place, and if it did, the nature of such a meeting and its duration were also left unilluminated. A full 32 paragraphs into their convoluted account, here's the best Gerth and Labaton could come up with: "A White House aide confirmed a late December visit by Ms. Lewinsky to the White House, after it was reported yesterday." So did Clinton see Lewinsky alone, or didn't he? As to Clinton's hiding the alleged meeting from his lawyers, even the most credulous readers had to be struck by the iffy, hedging manner in which the Times reported this possibility. "It was not clear," Gerth and Labaton wrote, "whether Robert Bennett, Mr. Clinton's private lawyer in the Jones case, knew of the late December meeting ... Mr. Bennett did not return a telephone call today seeking comment." Two weeks later, Bennett still hasn't answered the question. No ethical and competent criminal defense lawyer would. To admit such a thing would be prejudicial to his client. To deny it would be the equivalent of showing his hole card in a game of seven-card draw. It wasn't even a real question, merely a way for the reporters to indulge themselves in a bit of front-page innuendo that has characterized so much of the reporting on the alleged Clinton-Lewinsky affair. Then there's the decidedly odd business, as reported by the Times, of the president supposedly urging Lewinsky to avoid a subpoena from a federal court in Arkansas by moving to New York. You would expect veteran reporters from America's leading daily to know that the only way Clinton's alleged paramour could avoid a federal subpoena would have been to flee the country. President Clinton, a Yale law graduate and one-time professor of constitutional law, would certainly know that. In their story, Labaton and Gerth mention, almost as a recondite technicality, that "under Federal rules, Ms. Lewinsky could not escape ... simply by moving to New York. But a move from Washington to New York could have made it more difficult for Ms. Jones' lawyers to find her." At worst, this "difficulty" might have delayed the serving of a subpoena for as long as 24 hours. Unless, that is, Lewinsky had planned to change her name and leave no forwarding address. Given the amount of money and legal resources being lavished on Jones' legal team by conservative donors, even a 24-hour delay seems overly optimistic. There is another possibility, one that Gerth and Labaton labored mightily hard to ignore: that ignorant of the law, either Lewinsky or her "associate" simply made that part up. And if that part's fabricated, what part of the New York Times story, if any, is true? N E X T+P A G E+| Fools for scandal