Barnes & Nobleinfoseekad

Home
AllPolitics
 

 Home
 News
 Analysis
 Community
 CNN.com

Related Stories

 Click here for more Congressional Quarterly's in-depth political coverage.


Search


  Help

Democrats on the Hill Appear Underwhelmed by Probe, Await Starr Report to House

By Dan Carney, CQ Staff Writer

(CQ, April 18) -- When the Justice Department decided to allow Independent Counsel Kenneth W. Starr to investigate his own investigation -- particularly whether one of his best witnesses had been tainted by payments from a conservative foundation -- Rep. John Conyers Jr., D-Mich., decided to show some outrage.

"I am amazed and disappointed once again by the Department's repeated and excessive permissiveness" toward Starr, Conyers, the ranking Democrat on the Judiciary Committee, wrote to Attorney General Janet Reno.

With letters like these, one might assume Democrats on Capitol Hill are preparing a counteroffensive for the possibility that Starr could send Congress evidence against President Clinton that would trigger impeachment hearings. That assumption would be incorrect.

A stream of missives to Reno from Conyers, most of which have gone without response, are the extent of the Democratic strategy against Starr.

There have been no meetings among Democrats on the committee. No strategy sessions, no brainstorming, and little consideration of what might happen if Starr sends a report to Congress outlining possible grounds for impeaching Clinton.

"Not a blooming thing," is how Conyers characterizes what Democrats have done to prepare for a Starr report.

Even informal chats among members have been minimal. Rep. Melvin Watt, D-N.C., an outspoken critic of Republican policies, said he had not talked to a single other Democrat about Starr until he and fellow committee member Zoe Lofgren of California, were recently invited to appear on NBC's "Meet the Press."

"I read the newspaper headlines. I watch the television news," Watt said. "But I don't follow very closely what Starr is doing."

After weeks of news reports predicting that Starr would send a report to Capitol Hill in May, Starr himself hinted that the Democratic non-action may be warranted.

On April 16 Starr said he will not accept the deanships of Pepperdine University's law and public policy schools when his job as independent counsel is completed. In his letter to university President David Davenport, Starr said he did not want to leave the university hanging while his probe continues.

"The work of [the Office of the Independent Counsel] has expanded considerably, and the end is not yet in sight," he said. His decision came the same day that Paula Jones announced she would appeal a dismissal of her sexual harassment case against Clinton.

Starr's critics said his decision to decline the Pepperdine job was an attempt to defuse growing allegations of a conflict of interest.

The week of April 13, the news media pounced on a story that David Hale, one of Starr's lead witnesses, may have received payments in return for his testimony against Clinton. The money was alleged to have come from millionaire anti-Clinton activist Richard Mellon Scaife., who is also a major benefactor of Pepperdine.

Starr's letter to the school only cited the duration of his probe. At an April 16 news conference, however, he spoke of a new-found appreciation for the public relations aspects of his job.

Among Democrats, the Hale story caused barely a ripple. In a statement, Conyers criticized Starr for not handing the Hale allegations back to the Justice Department for investigation. And he called Starr's Pepperdine decision "too little, too late."

No Need To Organize

But in an interview, Conyers was much less indignant, and even willing to make light of his attacks on Starr.

"Why would the members of the committee need to organize against Starr?" he asked. "He's his own worst enemy, well, outside of me, maybe."

Rep. Barney Frank, D-Mass., also shrugged off the Hale-Scaife controversy. Democrats could use the controversy if they feel they need to refute Starr's report or if Republicans criticize them for being too soft on Clinton, he said.

Unless that happens, Democrats say there is no need to consider what advantage, if any, the controversy gives them.

Off Capitol Hill, however, there has been some Democratic activity. Bob Mulholland, a Democratic National Committee (DNC) member from California, has searched for embarrassing information about Republican House members that could be used in the event of impeachment hearings. The DNC and the White House have attempted to distance themselves from Mulholland.

On Capitol Hill, Democrats' attitude borders on nonchalance. Some members profess an exhaustion with Starr's investigation, particularly the breathless news coverage since Starr began to focus on whether Clinton had an affair with former intern Monica S. Lewinsky. They have, in effect, gone to sleep with instructions to be awakened when Starr's report arrives.

Others look at the many loose ends Starr still has, along with his lack of progress to date, and conclude that the report will be weak or non-existent.

"I'm skeptical there is going to be one that is even going to pretend to make the case for impeachment," said Frank.

© 1998 Congressional Quarterly Inc. All Rights Reserved.
In CQ News This Week

Saturday April 18, 1998

Bayh Likely To Pick Up Senate Seat in Indiana; Fundraising Troubles GOP
Funds For Others -- Or Maybe Themselves
Ohio Is Testing Ground For Parties' Plans To Keep or Capture House
Democrats on the Hill Appear Underwhelmed by Probe, Await Starr Report to House
Members Go Out on a Limb Over National Forests


Archives   |   CQ News   |   TIME On Politics   |   Feedback   |   Help

Copyright © 1998 AllPolitics All Rights Reserved.
Terms under which this information is provided to you.
Read our privacy guidelines.
Who we are.