Clinton's Ominous Starr

The crisis had erupted with the news reports that Clinton had an affair with 23-year-old White House intern, Monica Lewinsky and urged her to lie about it under oath. The sensational story has all but paralysed the White House. And constitutional experts have gone so far as to discuss whether the president could be impeached for his alleged misdoings.

바카라 웹사이트In response, Hillary Clinton has gone on the warpath. In several TV interviews, the first lady alleged that a right-wing conspiracy was on to discredit and drive her husband from office. She blamed the "politically motivated prosecutor who is allied with the right-wing opponents of my husband".

Starr was stung. And issued a rare public statement, saying Hillary's accusations were "nonsense" and that "our current investigation began when we received credible evidence of serious Federal crimes."

His critics say Starr seems determined to prove that Clinton is a criminal. His four-year, $25 million investigation has reached into almost every aspect of the Clintons' professional and married life—including real estate deals in Arkansas, the White House travel fiasco, the suicide of Vince Foster, and the charge that the president had Oval Office trysts with Lewinsky.

Even as he confronted the biggest crisis of his presidency, Clinton used all his rhetorical skills in his State of the Union address to sell a boldly liberal agenda to Congress and the country on January 27. Many of his listeners may have been paying less attention to the contents of the message than to the travails of the messenger. But with the spotlight on him for a full hour, the president seemed determined to shift the focus from the scandal to the nation's business at home and abroad.

In a separate statement to the press at the White House before the State of the Union speech, Clinton rejected accusations that he had urged Lewinsky to lie under oath about their relationship. "I want to say one thing to the American people. I want you to listen to me," Clinton said angrily, eyes glinting and emphasising each syllable with a jab of his right index finger. "I'm going to say this again: I did not have sexual relations with that woman Miss Lewinsky. I never told anybody to lie, not a single time. Never. These allegations are false and I need to go back to work for the American people."

바카라 웹사이트Lewinsky too had denied the affair in a deposition in the sexual harassment suit filed by Paula Jones against Clinton. However, she was then taped talking about both the tryst and Clinton's attempts to get her to lie about it. The discrepancy could land Lewinsky with perjury charges. Starr has warned that he could prosecute Lewinsky. And the initial attempts to strike a deal—Lewinsky's lawyer, William Ginsburg, has said she will "tell all" if she is offered immunity—were not successful. Lewin-sky has reportedly said she'd be willing to admit the affair but not that Clinton urged her to lie about it. On January 29, however, Ginsburg appeared to be preparing for the worst. He told NBC sardonically: "If you ask if we are making progress, we are making progress on preparing Monica's defence."

The speculation is that Starr is holding out for more damning evidence against Clinton. The president had denied the affair in a sworn deposition to Jones' lawyers, who are seeking to establish a pattern of his sexual misconduct. But he has refused to comment specifically on the nature of his relationship with Lewinsky.

The jeopardy that faces Lewinsky if she is without immunity was underscored in a document made public by a federal court on January 29. It revealed that prosecutors are considering charging her with lying in her sworn affidavit in the Jones case when she denied she had an affair with Clinton, and also with encouraging a friend to lie under oath.

"In a taped conversation with a cooperating witness, Ms Lewinsky states that she intended to lie when deposing," attorney general Janet Reno wrote in her application to turn over the investigation to Starr. "In the same conversation, she urged the cooperating witness to lie in her own upcoming testimony." Lawyers have con-firmed that the cooperating witness was former White House staffer Linda Tripp. Reno's document, however, makes no mention of allegations that Clinton, too, is reported to have lied in his testimony and to have encouraged Lewinsky to do the same.

In a new development, Reno announced on January 29, that she may open an investigation of her own into the sources of leaks from Starr's office. One of the most potentially damaging leaks—also based on unnamed sources—is that Clinton and Lewinsky were caught in the act at the White House, by someone, possibly a Secret Service agent.

Starr is reportedly now trying to get testimony from agents. And the Clinton administration is braced for a possible subpoena from Starr that would compel agents to testify whether they saw anything while on duty that would confirm an affair or cover-up involving Lewinsky. Administration officials say the Secret Service is prepared to challenge any such attempt, by making a legal argument that breaking the agency's code of silence would jeopardise the ability of agents to protect the president or visiting foreign leaders. Lewinsky's own credibility as a witness has also come under a strain with a former lover describing her as a sex-obsessed woman prone to twisting facts.

Clinton's lawyers too have gone on the offensive. In a motion filed in a US district court in Little Rock, they argued for an earlier trial of the Jones suit against Clinton, scheduled to begin on May 27, acknowledging that the president was being distracted from his work. They said legal processes "have become a vehicle for parties allied in an attempt to destroy the president" and accused the media of playing along by presenting "raw and salacious material" without checking it. By seeking to expedite the trial, the president's lawyers are probably trying to demonstrate to the public that Clinton has nothing to fear.

The White House, on its part, is touting the latest polls showing that the president's popularity rating remains high after a record number of TV viewers tuned into his State of the Union address. One survey, conducted after Clinton delivered his speech, showed his approval rating at a record 68 per cent.

Another poll, carried out by CNN and USA Today, indicated that three out of four people questioned believed the press was making too much of Lewinsky's claims. A total of 55 per cent said they thought the media had acted irresponsibly in its coverage against 37 per cent who felt the opposite.

바카라 웹사이트The press coverage has been so extensive that some news organisations have created Web sites dedicated to the scandal, updating them with each new twist. According to the Center for Media and Public Affairs, coverage of the scandal—in a comparable time period—has exceeded that accorded to the death of Princess Diana in August in Paris.

Clinton can take solace in the fact that a majority of the Americans do not believe that there is sufficient reason for the president to resign or be impeached. Nevertheless, there are conflicting opinions. "It demeans the office and it demeans our nation and it makes me sad," said Susan Pelter, who heads a Republican think tank.

Wendy Kaminer, a Public Policy fellow at Radcliffe College, says that he was nostalgic for the 1970s and '80s, when presidents were investigated for serious crimes and abuses of power—conducting illegal arms trades or using federal police agencies to spy on citizens. "Those were the days special prosecutors focused on matters of public interest, not private betrayals. I'm not suggesting that the president's alleged lies and infidelities don't matter. They must matter a lot to Hillary and Chelsea Clinton. Why should they matter to voters? President Clinton is not our friend or a member of our families. And we should worry more about his politics and policies than his fitness as a role model. There is something child-like and potentially dangerous about expecting a president to serve as our moral exemplar. That's what monarchs and demagogues do. In a democracy, the leader is no better than the people."