Reprinted from The Washington Times , 5am -- May 8, 1998
Clinton lawyers push for appeal
By Paul Bedard and Warren P. Strobel
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
White House lawyers, brushing aside parallels to Watergate, have begun making their case for appealing a federal judge's dismissal of President Clinton's use of executive privilege in the Monica Lewinsky sex-and-lies scandal, according to officials.
Copyright 1998 News World Communications, Inc.
The major difference between the cases cited by the legal team: No one has been charged with a crime in the Lewinsky affair; the White House hasn't used its powers to target critics, especially reporters, as did former President Nixon; and no tapes have been erased like the famous 18-and-a-half-minute gap on a Nixon tape.
"The assertion of law is much different, not least of which because we've had in the years since a great deal of case law that's been addressed," said spokesman Michael McCurry.
As a result, he added, "a factual legal basis for assertions of executive privilege that, if they were to be cited by any president, provide a much stronger legal basis for any claimed privilege."
But even before the White House moved to appeal the judge's dismissal and possibly broaden the executive privilege rule, a House Republican leader Thursday said he will propose legislation to limit it.
Rep. Tom DeLay, Texas Republican, said the White House was trying to "stall, delay and stonewall" investigators and must be stopped.
While legal experts say Mr. Clinton will fail as did Mr. Nixon in seeking executive privilege, the White House legal office wants to test its case with an appeal while also delaying investigation into reports the president had sex with the former intern and told her to lie about it.
Lanny J. Davis, a former White House special counsel, said, "Clearly, there will be some political price to pay for appealing, because of the inaccurate analogies that will be made to Watergate."
"That being said, [appealing] it also shows that the decision will be made on a judgment that this is a serious constitutional principle that needs to be defended, especially, as here, there is nothing to worry about in terms of the answers to the questions," he said.
White House political aides have pressured the president to drop any appeal of U.S. District Court Judge Norma Holloway Johnson's Monday ruling, saying that the prosecutors' interest in gaining the testimony outweighed the president's interest in keeping advice confidential in the Lewinsky affair.
They are worried that an appeal will make it easy for critics to compare him to Mr. Nixon, who failed to scuttle a 1974 ruling by U.S. District Judge John Sirica that he could not use executive privilege to hide tape-recorded conversations at the White House.
Clinton aides said they expect the Supreme Court to move quickly on any appeal.
Counsel Charles F.C. Ruff is said to want an appeal to both protect the office of the presidency and test Mr. Clinton's case.
Legal aides appear to be winning, said administration officials.
"There's discord but not from us," said a source close to the White House Counsel's Office.
One indication: the only public comments about the internal debate back up the legal team and a claim made by Mr. Clinton this week that his fight against Whitewater prosecutor Kenneth W. Starr is different from that of Mr. Nixon in Watergate.
"If [Clinton] is pursuing any matter, I don't think he's worried about any parallels to Watergate because there are none. In the case of Watergate, crimes were committed, as you may recall," Mr. McCurry said.
If the president loses the executive privilege case, both a lawyer and political aide would be required to testify. So far, deputy counsel Bruce Lindsey and political advisor Sidney Blumenthal have refused to tell a grand jury what they know about the Lewinsky affair.Reprinted with permission of
The Washington Times.
To subscribe to the Washington Times National Weekly Edition, click this icon or call 800-363-9118.
