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.
|