From: "J. Orlin Grabbe" 
Subject: SNET: [Fwd: Beelzebubba's Advisers Agree to Aggressively Brand Starr as Partisan]
Date: 7 Feb 1998 21:01:27 -0500
To: snetnews@world.std.com


->  SearchNet's   SNETNEWS   Mailing List

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--------------367D002350DD02B3A3B94AFA
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit



--------------367D002350DD02B3A3B94AFA
Content-Type: message/rfc822
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Content-Disposition: inline

Path: news.alt.net!su-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!cpk-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!news.bbnplanet.com!worldnet.att.net!newsadm
From: Bill Nalty 
Newsgroups: alt.current-events.clinton.whitewater
Subject: Beelzebubba's Advisers Agree to Aggressively Brand Starr as Partisan
Date: Sat, 07 Feb 1998 01:15:17 -0600
Organization: AT&T WorldNet Services
Message-ID: <6bhbhl$cjf@bgtnsc03.worldnet.att.net>
Reply-To: CBasher@worldnet.att.net
NNTP-Posting-Host: 12.65.208.217
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0C-WorldNet  (Win95; I)

http://www.washingtonpost.com

Clinton Advisers Agree to Aggressively Brand Starr as Partisan

By Dan Balz
Washington Post Staff Writer
Saturday, February 7, 1998; Page A1

For the past two weeks, President Clinton's legal and political
advisers argued over the best way to combat independent counsel
Kenneth W. Starr's investigation into the relationship between
the president and Monica Lewinsky. Yesterday those differences
dissolved with a volley of attacks designed to discredit the
Starr inquiry.

Until yesterday, Clinton's political advisers had urged an
aggressive campaign to brand Starr as a partisan prosecutor
attempting to bring down the president. Clinton's lawyers,
however, urged a more cautious approach.

But when Clinton's personal attorney David E. Kendall stepped
before the cameras yesterday afternoon to denounce "a deluge of
leaks" from Starr's office, the interests of the often-divided
camps around the president merged. As one official said, "Now
we're in a different atmosphere."

"Normally one would say you don't mess around with a
rattlesnake," said White House press secretary Michael McCurry.
"But we're well beyond that at this point."

If Kendall made a rare public appearance to attack Starr
yesterday, however, he and the president's legal team have been
privately aggressive in attempting to counter the independent
counsel's efforts.

The president's lawyers have been systematic in debriefing grand
jury witnesses  all through legal methods, they are quick to
note. Starr made reference to those efforts in an acerbic letter
of response to Kendall yesterday afternoon, noting that the White
House already had most of the information about the testimony of
Betty Currie, the president's personal secretary, that was
reported publicly yesterday.

The parallel investigations and the careful monitoring of each
side by the other creates a kind of spy vs. spy situation, and 
as the exchange of letters yesterday made clear, both Starr and
Kendall are determined to answer any criticism with a sharp
rebuttal.

All of this raises the stakes for both Starr and the White House.
The allegations of leaks have thrown Starr on the defensive. Even
before Kendall announced that he would seek legal relief, the
independent counsel had announced he was asking for an
investigation of possible leaks.

But the White House and the president also risk further damage if
it turns out that Starr has solid evidence that Clinton has not
told the truth about Lewinsky and urged her to lie about their
relationship under oath. In that case, the strategy could easily
backfire as an effort to divert public attention from the facts
of the case.

One friend of the president acknowledged that the attacks on
Starr represent a knowing diversion by the White House. As he put
it, "When you have problems domestically, you start a foreign
war."

But after a number of recent incidents, including two reports
this week about grand jury testimony that were sharply disputed
by the attorneys for the two witnesses cited, White House
officials have been moving toward a more aggressive posture
toward both the media and Starr's team.

With Kendall leading the attack, not only other White House
officials, but a number of Democrats joined in the campaign to
denounce Starr. Rep. John Conyers Jr. (D-Mich.), the ranking
Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee, asked Attorney General
Janet Reno to open a formal inquiry to determine whether Starr
"should be removed or disciplined" for "repeated instances of
alleged misconduct and abuses of power."

Contacted in his Detroit district office, Conyers said he had
been distressed with Starr's efforts for "quite a while," because
he believed Starr was partisan, had conflicts of interest and had
"exceeded his responsibility" repeatedly.

Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.), a senior committee Democrat, agreed
with Conyers's assessment. "These last couple of days, with grand
jury testimony leaking out, have been terribly abusive," Frank
said. "It sounds like he's [Starr's] trying to win a public
relations war. Leaking has no investigatory role."

Sen. Robert G. Torricelli (D-N.J.), a member of the Senate
Judiciary Committee, said anger over Starr and the leaks is
"beginning to boil" among Senate Democrats and that he is seeking
to advance the date for an appearance before the committee by
Reno to discuss Starr's conduct.

"Occasional leaks are understood, but the pattern and level of
purposefully leaking information is raising this to the level
where a criminal investigation may be required," Torricelli said
in a telephone interview.

Not all information that emerges from a grand jury represents an
illegal leak, however, and the White House has been energetic in
trying to obtain information about the testimony Starr's team is
assembling. It is not illegal for a grand jury witness to talk
about his or her testimony, or to authorize an attorney to share
it with others.

As a result, one Clinton strategist said the president's
attorneys are conducting "an aggressive parallel investigation"
of the allegations relating to Lewinsky and testimony before the
Starr grand jury. White House officials contrasted their use of
the information with what they said were efforts by the
president's opponents to twist grand jury testimony for their own
purposes.

Most of those called to testify are current or former White House
officials who have said publicly they know of no improper
relationship between the president and Lewinsky. Clinton's
lawyers are attempting to debrief as many of those witnesses as
possible, an official acknowledged yesterday.

For example, on the day after former White House senior adviser
George Stephanopoulos testified before the grand jury, his
attorney, Stanley W. Brand, called Kendall and described "the
essential elements" of the questions Stephanopoulos was asked and
the answers he provided. Brand called the practice of sharing
information "fairly routine," especially when witnesses are not
hostile.

In addition, the White House counsel's office has helped a number
of witnesses find lawyers. A White House spokesman confirmed that
the counsel's office helped obtain the attorney representing
Currie, as well as attorneys for several White House stewards who
have testified.

"It's one of the functions of the counsel's office," said White
House spokesman Joe Lockhart. "When someone on the staff here
needs an attorney, the counsel's office may recommend someone or
put them in touch with someone." Lockhart said the White House is
not paying the legal bills for employees called to testify.

The fact that Clinton's attorneys are in regular communication
with these attorneys has been helpful on a number of occasions.
When the Wall Street Journal posted a damaging article on its web
site on Wednesday afternoon, presidential assistant Bruce Lindsey
instantly took exception to the description of steward Bayani
Nelvis's testimony, according to one source. Soon after, Nelvis's
lawyer, Joseph Small, issued a denial which White House officials
were quoting before it arrived in many newsrooms of major
newspapers and television networks.

On Thursday night, when a report surfaced that Clinton had
reviewed his testimony about Lewinsky in the Paula Jones case
with Currie, the president's legal team contacted Currie's
lawyer, Lawrence Wechsler.

According to one senior official, the president's lawyer
encouraged Wech sler to provide, in addition to a denial, further
information about Currie's testimony to dispute the damaging
description of the conversation. Still, the White House was slow
to provide the information.

Staff writers Peter Baker, Helen Dewar, Guy Gugliotta, Sue
Schmidt and Bob Woodward contributed to this report.

) Copyright 1998 The Washington Post Company

--------------367D002350DD02B3A3B94AFA--


-> Send "subscribe   snetnews " to majordomo@world.std.com
->  Posted by: "J. Orlin Grabbe"