 |
|
| Email this article | Printer friendly page |
| For Immediate Release | |
| Aug 14, 1998 | Contact: Press Office 202-646-5172 |
|
New York Times confirms cleverly crafted defense strategy designed to 'skirt' issues EXPERIENCE OF JUDICIAL WATCH IN TAKING DEPOSITIONS SHOWS THAT STARR MUST KEEP CLINTON "OFF BALANCE" AND NOT GIVE ANY GROUND On Monday, August 17, 1998, Ken Starr -- who is an appellate not a trial lawyer -- will take the sworn testimony of Bill Clinton in the Monicagate scandal. Notwithstanding his inexperience in courtroom technique, Starr will be hampered by the ground rules which he agreed to, namely that the testimony is limited to one day, and that questions and answers will be relayed through close circuit television. Combined with the ability of Clinton's lawyer, David Kendall, to object to questions, most likely in a way that will tip Clinton off to "favorable" answers, this will slow the process down, and Starr is unlikely to get more than 3-4 hours of actual testimony. Given the breadth of the investigation, this is not much. If, as Judicial Watch Chairman Larry Klayman has been predicting, and as The New York Times confirms this morning, Clinton offers prepared testimony, and refuses to answer all questions about his "relationship" with Lewinsky, Starr should immediately serve the President with a subpoena. If the President still does not answer specific questions, Starr should immediately adjourn the deposition and seek a ruling from Judge Johnson. If, after receiving a likely favorable ruling, Clinton invokes alleged constitutional privileges to avoid testifying -- such as the claim that a President cannot be subpoenaed -- Starr should shut down the proceeding and not allow him to use it for "public relations purposes." Instead, he should move to compel the testimony before the appellate courts. Since it will take as much time to appeal the subpoena issue, as the issue of whether a President can be indicted, Starr should, if he has "probable cause," indict Clinton, and thus the two issues can be heard by the courts at the same time. This would show that Starr means business, that the charges are serious, and that his investigation will not be derailed by the public relations spinmeisters of the White House. Congress has no inclination to impeach, and there will be no justice unless Starr indicts and tries the case before a court of law, not nervous Republicans who fear having their own transgressions exposed. For if Starr feels strongly, as he should, that perjury and obstruction of justice cannot be allowed in the "temple of the law," he must pursue legal means to bring Clinton to justice and not leave it in the hands of "court jesters" such as Newt Gingrich and his band of compromised politicians. |
|
