On Friday, Meehan reiterated the point to reporters, noting that
Dash's complete statement, made in April 1996 about Starr's willingness to take on outside
clients who were Clinton's political opponents, included: "If I had my own
preferences, I'd hope he'd be a full-time independent counsel."
Starr responded by emphasizing the reasonable, principled disagreement he
and Dash have on that issue. It was a theme Starr returned to Friday morning when he
publicly reacted to Dash's letter.
"By your willingness to serve in this improper role you have
seriously harmed the public confidence in the independence and objectivity of your office.
Frequently you have publicly stated that you have sought my advice in major decisions and
had my approval," Dash added. "I cannot allow that inference to continue
regarding your present abuse of your office and have no other choice but to resign."
Dash, a law professor at Georgetown University who served as the Senate
Watergate Committee's Democratic majority counsel, is regarded as a magnanimous arbiter, a
reputation highlighted by his conduct during the Nixon scandal. And Democrats wielded his
reputation like a weapon, even though Dash wrote that Starr had acted "with integrity
and professionalism" during the four-year probe into Clinton's activities.
"Ken Starr's willingness to make the case for impeachment just
reinforces the concerns many of us have had about his judgement," said Rep. Marty
Meehan. D-Mass. "Sam Dash's criticism ... is right on target."
It was Meehan who on Thursday used Dash's own words to needle Starr over
his willingness to draw a $1-million-plus salary from his law firm even while working as
an independent counsel. "Mr. Starr, your own ethics adviser, Sam Dash, is on the
record stating that, while your conduct [in maintaining a private law practice] ...
violated no technical legal ethics rules, that conduct, and I quote 'does have an odor to
it,'" Meehan said.
"Sam Dash is a man of total principle, and I love Sam Dash and I
think he did feel strongly that while we had properly submitted the referral to Congress,
that it was wrong for me to go forward and to testify yesterday in the way that, as he saw
it, that I did," Starr said. "This was so important to him that he felt that the
right thing to do was to take the action that he has taken. And I admire that."
Though Dash's sprint from Starr set Washington's political establishment
abuzz, some Republican lawmakers went public with their latest thoughts on how they would
vote on the question of impeaching Clinton.
Moderate Rep. John Porter, R-Ill., -- who is not a member of the Judiciary
Committee -- said he would not vote for articles of impeachment if the House receives no
new information on the case. He prefers censure, and said that drafting such a resolution
would draw strong support from both sides of the aisle.
It is believed that there is a group of 20 or more GOP moderates in the
House who would vote against impeaching the president -- plenty of votes to sink any
articles of impeachment drafted by the House committee.
"If I'm correct, the votes aren't there," Porter added.
Other Republicans who have been quoted in news stories in opposition to
impeachment include Reps. Peter King of New York, Christopher Shays of Connecticut and
Jack Quinn of New York.
But Rep. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., one of a handful of potential swing votes
on the Judiciary Committee, said Friday that a strong case could be made for the panel to
draft articles of impeachment against Clinton unless the White House delivers additional
exculpatory information.
"If the facts don't change, it is the most overwhelming case for
grand jury perjury I've ever seen in my life," Graham said, asserting that 115 people
are in prison today for lying in federal court.
Graham, who is a barometer for how other moderate committee Republicans
may vote, urged Clinton and his attorneys to finish answering 81 "admit or deny"
questions submitted to them by the committee on Nov. 5. He invited them to refute any of
the facts put before the committee by Starr, and to back their arguments up with accounts
of their own.
"If you've got some facts you want to put into play, do so now,"
he said. "I am one member dying to hear that."
Graham added that he would be sending a letter to the president's personal
attorney, David Kendall, reiterating the request. He also expressed disappointment that
the president's attorneys have chosen to attack Starr's ethics rather than refute his
allegations.
The congressman has said repeatedly that if the charges against Clinton do
not amount to more than a tawdry sexual affair or a "Peyton Place" scenario,
then he would not support impeachment.
He explained Friday, though, that since this matter escalated beyond a
soap opera into possible perjury before a grand jury -- albeit perjury designed to conceal
a sexual relationship -- he could not ignore the charges.
Graham, a shrewd politician, acknowledged the backlash Republicans may
encounter, but noted his duty in this matter supercedes politics. "I've got a duty
far greater than just getting to the next election," he said.
Meanwhile, as expected, the House Judiciary panel voted -- on party lines
in three cases -- to subpoena four additional witnesses, expanding their probe presumably
to help establish a pattern of misconduct by the president.
Two witnesses with ties to former White House volunteer Kathleen Willey
are scheduled to give sworn depositions to the committee early next week. Willey has
accused the president of making a crude sexual advance toward her in the Oval Office on
Nov. 29, 1993. Clinton adamantly denies this charge.
Daniel Gecker, who was once Kathleen Willey's attorney, and Democratic
Party fund-raiser Nathan Landow will appear before the panel on Monday and Tuesday,
respectively. Landow is one who Starr believed may have intervened on Clinton's behalf to
silence Willey's testimony.
Deputy White House Counsel Bruce Lindsey and Robert Bennett, Clinton's
private attorney during the Paula Corbin Jones sexual harassment lawsuit, are to appear
the week after Thanksgiving. Of the four witnesses, Democrats only agreed to subpoena
Lindsey, but did not try to block subpoenas for the others.
Chairman Hyde is keeping Dec. 7 open as a date for the committee to
conduct another public hearing with a witness or witnesses, probably to explore the
meaning of taking an oath of office. He declined to say who else the committee may
subpoena.
In addition, Hyde has said that the committee will "accommodate"
either the president or his attorneys any time they want to make a formal presentation to
the committee -- with no time limits on the presentation of their case.
--Web posted: Nov. 20, 1998
