White House Hits Back At Starr
Given a day to absorb Kenneth Starr's graphic report, the White House issued a rebuttal Saturday assailing the report as "an over-reaching and extravagant effort to find a case where there is none."
The 42-page rebuttal from the president's lawyers dismisses the report as "an overblown story about sexual misconduct" whose "principal purpose is to embarrass the president."
 |
| Our Full Coverage of this Ongoing Story |
Calling the report "part of a hit-and-run smear campaign," the White House alleges that the report's "principal purpose is to embarrass the president."
In the condemnation of Starr's report is a point-by-point rebuttal of the 11 possibly impeachable offenses the report alleges the president committed.
Specifically, CBS News White House Correspondent Bill Plante reports, the document refutes these conclusions by Starr:
- The perjury charge: The White House document again argues that Mr. Clinton could reasonably claim that he had not had a sexual relationship with Monica Lewinsky - as he understood the term to be defined. In any case, say his lawyers, nothing the president said meets the tight legal standard for proof of perjury.
- On obstruction of justice: The lawyers deny that the president and Lewinsky tried to conceal the gifts he gave her. But in any case, they claim, the charge doesn't apply in a civil suit such as the Paula Jones sexual harassment suit.
- On witness tampering: Did Mr. Clinton attempt to tamper with the recollections of his secretary, Betty Currie? No, say his attorneys, and in any case she wasn't a witness at the time they talked.
- Abuse of power: His lawyers say the president's assertion of executive privilege to keep staffers from testifying and his own refusal to testify for eight months were justified because he was under investigation.
In the end, the lawyers insist, Mr. Clinton's improper sexual conduct is not grounds for impeachment.
Clinton's lawyers conclude that his actions were wrong, but added, "such acts do not even approach the Constitutional test of impeachment treason, bribery or other high crimes and misdemeanors."
 | The Starr Report Saturday's White House Rebuttal Downlad to your hard drive:
|
"After impaneling grand juries and leasing office space in three jurisdictions and investigating virtually every aspect of the president's business, financial, political, official and ultimately, personal life, the Office of Independent Counsel has presented to the House a referral that no prosecutor would present to any jury," the White House said.
"It is plain that 'sex' is precisely what this four-and-a-half year investigation has boiled down to," the White House fumed. It was the its second counter report in two days, but the first since they had actually gotten the chance to review the document.
"The referral is so loaded with irrelevant and unnecessary, graphic and salacious allegations that only one conclusion is possible: its principal purpose is to damage the president," the rebuttal added.
In Atlanta, House Speaker Newt Gingrich said the lurid nature of the report was unfortunate but was caused by the president's denial of a sexual relationship with former White House intern Monica Lewinsky. He called on lawmakers to reserve judgment.
"I think you cannot render ... any judgment until you have given the president a chance to respond and given the Judiciary Committee a chance to do its job," Gingrich said.
Presidential aides, relieved there were no new bombshells in the Starr report, launched the offensive to encourage Democrats to stand behind the president and to ridicule the report as tawdry.
It marked the start of a passionate effort by Clinton to argue against his removal from office. For the short term, it appears they will paint Starr as a misguided and sex-obsessed partisan.
In his weekly radio address, Clinton said it had been "an exhausting and difficult week in the capital not only for me, but for many others." Without a mention of the Starr report, he pledged to press ahead with his policy agenda.
"The most important thing to do now is to stay focused on the issues the American people sent us here to deal with, from health care to the economy to terrorism," Clinton said.
Lawmakers this weekend were home campaigning and listening to voters. The next set of jurors on the case, members of the House Judiciary Committee charged with deciding whether impeachment proceedings are warranted, reacted cautiously.
Obviously he did something wrong," said Rep. Thomas Barrett, a Wisconsin Democrat who was appointed to the committee on Friday. "You don't violate your marriage promises and walk away from it."
"I want to see what the evidence is with regard to the other allegations and listen to what the president has to say and then make a decision as to what is right for the country," he said.
Republicans scoffeat White House arguments there was nothing worthy of impeachment in the report, but they too were careful not to predict whether proceedings would begin.
"Even those defenders of the president who sought to diminish the significance of perjury in a civil case have acknowledged that it's simply unacceptable for a president to lie before a grand jury," said Rep. Charles Canady, R-Fla., another Judiciary Committee member. "I am reserving judgment on all these matters."
Perhaps the most practical view came from Rep. Charles Rangel of New York, a veteran Democratic Congressman and one of only two serving on the House Judiciary Committee since the Watergate scandal a quarter of a century ago. On the CBS Evening News Saturday Edition, he told Anchor Paula Zahn he doubted there would be time for impeachment proceedings, once the members of Congress get distracted by the November election season. Zahn asked whether the scandal would diminish the president's ability to govern. "Well, let's talk about it," quipped Rangel. "He should stay away from family values."
The Associated Press contributed to this report