Salon | Newsreal: Bugliosi the bomb thrower

T A B L E+T A L K
Will Willey trip up "Willie"? Discuss the most recent chapter in the presidential crises in Politics
D A I L Y+Q U O T E
Getting naked in Moscow

A L S O+T O D A Y
The road to Hale
Jonathan Broder and Murray Waas
A Salon investigative report reveals that key Whitewater witness David Hale received cash payments from anti-Clinton billionaire Richard Mellon Scaife

R E C E N T L Y
Clinton's ghost
By Gene Lyons
Jim McDougal's quest for revenge finally killed him, but not before embroiling the country in the six-year torture known as Whitewater
(03/16/98)
Rethinking Rodney King
By Lori Leibovich
A new book suggests that the beating that shook America may not have been as black-and-white a case as it appeared
(03/13/98)
Salon exclusive: Paula Jones' funny money
By Jonathan Broder and Murray Waas
Is Paula Jones fleecing the public -- and why is one of her big benefactors trying to be secret?
(03/12/98)
Paula Jones' Mysterious Benefactor
By Jonathan Broder and Murray Waas
Who's behind a secret $50,000 donation to the legal fund of Clinton's accuser?
(03/12/98)
The Falwell connection
By Murray Waas
How the Rev. Jerry Falwell and a California political organization helped finance and orchestrate an extensive anti-Clinton propaganda campaign
(03/11/98)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Browse the
Newsreal Archives
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

spacer

BUGLIOSI THE BOMB THROWER | PAGE 2 OF 2
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
You say in the book that the president's lawyers messed up too.
The president's lawyers never helped at all. They made the wrong argument, they argued the subtle, elegant argument -- separation of powers. It is a valid argument, though very weak, and the court rejected it out of hand. It would not have been easy for them to reject balancing of interest. If they ruled in favor of Paula Jones, they'd have to put down in black and white something that would make them look like fools: that they had balanced the interest, and they thought the right of this individual to go to trial right now was more important than the conflicting rights of millions of Americans. How do you write something like that down?
What would you have presented to the judge if you were Clinton's lawyer?
Balancing of interest! If I had prepared a 50-page brief, 48 pages would have been on balancing of interest, and two pages on separation of powers. Then the court wouldn't have had any choice.
But even though the lawyers were incompetent in not raising the balance of interest issue, the court on its own has a duty to determine what the law is. They can't say, well, these lawyers are incompetent.
So why did they vote in favor of Paula Jones 9-0?
That's the argument I always hear: "It was nine-nothing! Are you saying that they were all wrong?" But even the court doesn't buy a fatuous argument like that, that they are never wrong. If they did, they would never reverse themselves. And they reverse themselves all the time. They just did something which is incomprehensible here. They have gotten a free ride up to this point. But when you have the main paper in the nation's capital, where the court is, saying that they disgraced themselves, they are not getting a free ride anymore.
Why haven't more people come out against the ruling, as you have?
No one saw it prior to this book. No one was criticizing the court before this book. There were many people who were upset by the court's decision, and said, "God, this is going to hurt the office of the presidency," but those very same people go on to say that the court had no choice -- that it was a legally correct opinion. I am saying that it was a legally incorrect opinion. I am getting letters, phone calls, faxes from lawyers around the country, including lawyers practicing constitutional law, and they are saying, "Vince, you are right, the court did not balance the interest."
But what do you see that others don't?
I am not particularly bright, but I do see things that other people don't see. The classic example was in the Simpson case, where everyone thought the prosecution did a good job until I wrote "Outrage." Now the consensus among more educated people is that the DA did a terrible job. They were all saying that the prosecution did all they could possibly do, and it was all the fault of the jury. Well, the jury was bad, but the prosecution was even worse. When you ask me why do I see obvious things, they are not the type of things that require a lot of intelligence, if they did I wouldn't be able to see them. But I am able to see some of these things because I am uninfluenced by expectations, they don't mean anything to me. What happened here is that people said, this is the U.S. Supreme Court -- they obviously know what they are doing. No one was even thinking of balancing of interest. I think they just goofed. You get a mob, and they follow sheeplike, one goes one way, and all of a sudden, they are all aboard. Justice Breyer was strange, though, because at first he seemed to be disagreeing with the court. He wrote a 16-page opinion that attacked the court, and then in the last paragraph turned completely around.
In the first part of the book you say you are not pro-Clinton or pro-Democrat. But you do call some right-wing Republicans "feeble-minded morons." Why do they make you so angry?
I'm talking about the right wing of the Republicans, not the whole party per se. It is my view that its right wing has hurt the Republican party much more than the Democrats have. One reason they make me so angry is that, contrary to what they say, I find them to be very unpatriotic. If they were patriotic, they would want the president to do well, even if he is a Democrat, because if the president does well, the country does well. They don't seem to be concerned about how the country does. They only want the country to do well if one of their people is in office. If not, all they want to do is to destroy that person. These people are the flag-wavers. I also don't like hypocrisy. Nine out of 10 times, the true heroes are not flag-wavers. They are hypocritical, and they are out to savage the president even though they know that it is humiliating the entire country.
Do you agree with Hillary Clinton that there is a "vast right-ring conspiracy" against the president?
Not in the law school sense of these groups getting together and agreeing. A conspiracy is two or more people getting together to commit a crime. Not in that sense. However, unless you believe in coincidences, all of these groups that have been attacking the president for the past several years, without exception, are right-wing groups. There are no moderate groups in the Republican or Democratic parties who are doing what these people are doing. Although there is no conspiracy, the reality is the same. The right wing is savaging the president. It has nothing to do with the fact that some people say he is immoral. They did the same thing with Jimmy Carter: They savaged Carter and Carter was one of the most moral people to inhabit the Oval Office. If you are a Democrat, then these feeble-minded morons are out to get you. That is why I am upset with them.
What are your feelings about Kenneth Starr?
I have extremely negative views about him. He had a professional and ethical responsibility to turn down his appointment as a Whitewater prosecutor because he was already on the record as being pro-Paula Jones. He was already giving serious thought to preparing a supporting legal brief on her behalf. There was an absolute conflict of interest. He had a duty to say he was flattered by the appointment, but that he was already on record as taking her side against the president. He was not an "independent counsel." This guy has had 20 prosecutors, 10 FBI agents and $40 million to investigate a small-time, money-losing venture in Little Rock from 20 years ago! That is outrageous.
You describe Starr as "out of control."
He was demonstrating a troubling preoccupation with Clinton's private sexual life, long before Monica Lewinsky.
How do you explain his appointment and reappointment, then?
Well, look at who appointed him! A three-judge federal panel headed by a very conservative judge who owes his judgeship to that paragon of fairness and moderation, Jesse Helms. So you've got the right wing's fingerprints all over this. Starr is the darling of the right wing.
Would you agree that there is collusion between Starr and Jones' lawyers?
There is no question that there is a synergism here, but whether it is an intentional synergism, well, they both deny that. They are certainly playing off each other and profiting from what the other one is doing. Whether they are breaking bread together, I don't know.
Last week, the Chicago Tribune reported that mail solicitations to the Paula Jones Legal Fund weren't reaching her lawyers and instead were being absorbed by Jones herself. Should she be prosecuted for mail fraud?
I can't comment because I don't know all the details.
The White House has accused the media of being overzealous in reporting Paula Jones' accusations against President Clinton while ignoring Mr. Bennett's court filing three weeks ago to dismiss the Jones case.
The media have been aiding and abetting Starr, not because they are conservative, but because their primary motivation is getting a good story. You have people like Sam Donaldson looking very happy in front of the White House. The fact that the president might be destroyed doesn't matter to them, and that bothers me. Sure, we want the president to have respect for the Oval Office -- let's assume now that he did have consensual sex with Monica Lewinsky -- but we're talking about lawful and consensual activity among adults. They've been treating this like they found a mutilated corpse in the White House basement with the president's fingerprints on it! The coverage the media is giving this is disproportionate. They are not showing any restraint or responsibility.
Isn't the media just doing their job -- digging up stories?
Under that logic, then the media would investigate every story with the same tenacity.
But every story doesn't involve the president of the United States.
I think that is a partially valid argument. But the question is, if they are doing this for consensual sexual activity, what would they do for murder? If there was sexual activity and the president was trying to cover it up -- well, that's almost as common as the common cold. But Starr is investigating this like it's murder or treason. This is a guy who tries to turn a mother against her daughter. It's absolutely unbelievable.
SALON | March 17, 1997

T A B L E+T A L K Will Willey trip up "Willie"? Discuss the most recent chapter in the presidential crises in Politics D A I L Y+Q U O T E Getting naked in Moscow A L S O+T O D A Y The road to Hale Jonathan Broder and Murray Waas A Salon investigative report reveals that key Whitewater witness David Hale received cash payments from anti-Clinton billionaire Richard Mellon Scaife R E C E N T L Y Clinton's ghost By Gene Lyons Jim McDougal's quest for revenge finally killed him, but not before embroiling the country in the six-year torture known as Whitewater (03/16/98) Rethinking Rodney King By Lori Leibovich A new book suggests that the beating that shook America may not have been as black-and-white a case as it appeared (03/13/98) Salon exclusive: Paula Jones' funny money By Jonathan Broder and Murray Waas Is Paula Jones fleecing the public -- and why is one of her big benefactors trying to be secret? (03/12/98) Paula Jones' Mysterious Benefactor By Jonathan Broder and Murray Waas Who's behind a secret $50,000 donation to the legal fund of Clinton's accuser? (03/12/98) The Falwell connection By Murray Waas How the Rev. Jerry Falwell and a California political organization helped finance and orchestrate an extensive anti-Clinton propaganda campaign (03/11/98) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Browse the Newsreal Archives - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
		BUGLIOSI THE BOMB THROWER \| PAGE 2 OF 2 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - You say in the book that the president's lawyers messed up too. The president's lawyers never helped at all. They made the wrong argument, they argued the subtle, elegant argument -- separation of powers. It is a valid argument, though very weak, and the court rejected it out of hand. It would not have been easy for them to reject balancing of interest. If they ruled in favor of Paula Jones, they'd have to put down in black and white something that would make them look like fools: that they had balanced the interest, and they thought the right of this individual to go to trial right now was more important than the conflicting rights of millions of Americans. How do you write something like that down? What would you have presented to the judge if you were Clinton's lawyer? Balancing of interest! If I had prepared a 50-page brief, 48 pages would have been on balancing of interest, and two pages on separation of powers. Then the court wouldn't have had any choice. But even though the lawyers were incompetent in not raising the balance of interest issue, the court on its own has a duty to determine what the law is. They can't say, well, these lawyers are incompetent. So why did they vote in favor of Paula Jones 9-0? That's the argument I always hear: "It was nine-nothing! Are you saying that they were all wrong?" But even the court doesn't buy a fatuous argument like that, that they are never wrong. If they did, they would never reverse themselves. And they reverse themselves all the time. They just did something which is incomprehensible here. They have gotten a free ride up to this point. But when you have the main paper in the nation's capital, where the court is, saying that they disgraced themselves, they are not getting a free ride anymore. Why haven't more people come out against the ruling, as you have? No one saw it prior to this book. No one was criticizing the court before this book. There were many people who were upset by the court's decision, and said, "God, this is going to hurt the office of the presidency," but those very same people go on to say that the court had no choice -- that it was a legally correct opinion. I am saying that it was a legally incorrect opinion. I am getting letters, phone calls, faxes from lawyers around the country, including lawyers practicing constitutional law, and they are saying, "Vince, you are right, the court did not balance the interest." But what do you see that others don't? I am not particularly bright, but I do see things that other people don't see. The classic example was in the Simpson case, where everyone thought the prosecution did a good job until I wrote "Outrage." Now the consensus among more educated people is that the DA did a terrible job. They were all saying that the prosecution did all they could possibly do, and it was all the fault of the jury. Well, the jury was bad, but the prosecution was even worse. When you ask me why do I see obvious things, they are not the type of things that require a lot of intelligence, if they did I wouldn't be able to see them. But I am able to see some of these things because I am uninfluenced by expectations, they don't mean anything to me. What happened here is that people said, this is the U.S. Supreme Court -- they obviously know what they are doing. No one was even thinking of balancing of interest. I think they just goofed. You get a mob, and they follow sheeplike, one goes one way, and all of a sudden, they are all aboard. Justice Breyer was strange, though, because at first he seemed to be disagreeing with the court. He wrote a 16-page opinion that attacked the court, and then in the last paragraph turned completely around. In the first part of the book you say you are not pro-Clinton or pro-Democrat. But you do call some right-wing Republicans "feeble-minded morons." Why do they make you so angry? I'm talking about the right wing of the Republicans, not the whole party per se. It is my view that its right wing has hurt the Republican party much more than the Democrats have. One reason they make me so angry is that, contrary to what they say, I find them to be very unpatriotic. If they were patriotic, they would want the president to do well, even if he is a Democrat, because if the president does well, the country does well. They don't seem to be concerned about how the country does. They only want the country to do well if one of their people is in office. If not, all they want to do is to destroy that person. These people are the flag-wavers. I also don't like hypocrisy. Nine out of 10 times, the true heroes are not flag-wavers. They are hypocritical, and they are out to savage the president even though they know that it is humiliating the entire country. Do you agree with Hillary Clinton that there is a "vast right-ring conspiracy" against the president? Not in the law school sense of these groups getting together and agreeing. A conspiracy is two or more people getting together to commit a crime. Not in that sense. However, unless you believe in coincidences, all of these groups that have been attacking the president for the past several years, without exception, are right-wing groups. There are no moderate groups in the Republican or Democratic parties who are doing what these people are doing. Although there is no conspiracy, the reality is the same. The right wing is savaging the president. It has nothing to do with the fact that some people say he is immoral. They did the same thing with Jimmy Carter: They savaged Carter and Carter was one of the most moral people to inhabit the Oval Office. If you are a Democrat, then these feeble-minded morons are out to get you. That is why I am upset with them. What are your feelings about Kenneth Starr? I have extremely negative views about him. He had a professional and ethical responsibility to turn down his appointment as a Whitewater prosecutor because he was already on the record as being pro-Paula Jones. He was already giving serious thought to preparing a supporting legal brief on her behalf. There was an absolute conflict of interest. He had a duty to say he was flattered by the appointment, but that he was already on record as taking her side against the president. He was not an "independent counsel." This guy has had 20 prosecutors, 10 FBI agents and $40 million to investigate a small-time, money-losing venture in Little Rock from 20 years ago! That is outrageous. You describe Starr as "out of control." He was demonstrating a troubling preoccupation with Clinton's private sexual life, long before Monica Lewinsky. How do you explain his appointment and reappointment, then? Well, look at who appointed him! A three-judge federal panel headed by a very conservative judge who owes his judgeship to that paragon of fairness and moderation, Jesse Helms. So you've got the right wing's fingerprints all over this. Starr is the darling of the right wing. Would you agree that there is collusion between Starr and Jones' lawyers? There is no question that there is a synergism here, but whether it is an intentional synergism, well, they both deny that. They are certainly playing off each other and profiting from what the other one is doing. Whether they are breaking bread together, I don't know. Last week, the Chicago Tribune reported that mail solicitations to the Paula Jones Legal Fund weren't reaching her lawyers and instead were being absorbed by Jones herself. Should she be prosecuted for mail fraud? I can't comment because I don't know all the details. The White House has accused the media of being overzealous in reporting Paula Jones' accusations against President Clinton while ignoring Mr. Bennett's court filing three weeks ago to dismiss the Jones case. The media have been aiding and abetting Starr, not because they are conservative, but because their primary motivation is getting a good story. You have people like Sam Donaldson looking very happy in front of the White House. The fact that the president might be destroyed doesn't matter to them, and that bothers me. Sure, we want the president to have respect for the Oval Office -- let's assume now that he did have consensual sex with Monica Lewinsky -- but we're talking about lawful and consensual activity among adults. They've been treating this like they found a mutilated corpse in the White House basement with the president's fingerprints on it! The coverage the media is giving this is disproportionate. They are not showing any restraint or responsibility. Isn't the media just doing their job -- digging up stories? Under that logic, then the media would investigate every story with the same tenacity. But every story doesn't involve the president of the United States. I think that is a partially valid argument. But the question is, if they are doing this for consensual sexual activity, what would they do for murder? If there was sexual activity and the president was trying to cover it up -- well, that's almost as common as the common cold. But Starr is investigating this like it's murder or treason. This is a guy who tries to turn a mother against her daughter. It's absolutely unbelievable. SALON \| March 17, 1997