 |
Well, why didn't he say so? This Changes Everything!By Rick Horowitz IN A NATION'S CAPITAL -- In the wake of Thursday's testimony from independent counsel Kenneth Starr, the mood in Washington and throughout the country has apparently been transformed. Making his case before a normally partisan House Judiciary Committee and a nation grown weary of endless allegations of presidential misconduct, Mr. Starr set forth evidence to support his contention that President Clinton repeatedly violated the law in his attempt to hide his relationship with former intern Monica Lewinsky. And when Mr. Starr was done, when he had answered questions from committee members, staff lawyers and Mr. Clinton's own attorney, the investigation of the president had clearly turned a page. "To be honest with you, I was very impressed by his arguments," admitted Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.), a committee member and one of Mr. Starr's most vocal critics. "We're really going to have to take another look at this thing." Mr. Frank said he was most struck by the lengths to which Mr. Clinton appeared willing to go to keep his relationship with Ms. Lewinsky a secret. "If he wants to lie about it to his wife, that's his business. But lying in a sworn deposition and in front of a grand jury, that's something else again." Similar sentiments were voiced by Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee (D-Tex.), another strong defender of the president throughout the committee's deliberations. "Mr. Starr has really done his homework," said Ms. Jackson Lee, "and he raises some very troubling questions about patterns of conduct in the Lewinsky matter and in other issues like Whitewater. I'm not going to close my eyes to the president's behavior just because he's a fellow Democrat." Early polls, meanwhile, suggest that Mr. Starr's testimony has struck a chord with the American public as well. By margins of more than 2-to-1, those questioned agreed that "Now I get it -- this is serious." As recently as two weeks ago, people had said by similar margins, "Shut it down -- this is boring." For their part, committee Republicans were urging caution, and suggesting that the ultimate punishment of impeachment might not fit the particular misdeeds alleged by Mr. Starr. "We're not looking to crucify anyone here," said committee chairman Henry Hyde (R-Ill.), "and we'd much rather come up with an appropriate remedy that stops well short of that." Committee Republicans were reported to be uncomfortable with some of the tactics used by Mr. Starr to gather information about the president and Ms. Lewinsky. "Sure he's a lying creep," said Rep. Bob Barr (R-Ga.), a longtime antagonist of the president, referring to Mr. Clinton. "But that doesn't give Ken Starr the right to bend the rules to go after him." Mr. Barr wondered whether a resolution of censure might be sufficient to express congressional displeasure with Mr. Clinton's conduct, while not bringing on the disruption that would result from a full-blown impeachment trial. "We'd like to get this thing over with," said Mr. Barr, "but it's really up to the president and his people." Speaking for Mr. Clinton, who is traveling in Asia, a senior White House aide said he felt confident that "something can be worked out," and that the president would be willing to "take his punishment like a man." "If it's censure, we can live with that," said the aide. "Even if it turns out to be impeachment -- well, the president has always known he'd have to pay a price for what he did." The aide predicted that any resolution of the situation would have to await Mr. Clinton's return to Washington. In addition, the aide cautioned, the president's first responsibility upon his return would be to look into reports that unknown parties have been tampering with the nation's water supply. Said the aide, "There seems to be a lot of hallucinating going on lately." Posted
11/20/98. Fresh stuff right here twice
weekly!
 |
  |
