|
|
| FROM THE NEWSROOM
January 29, 1998The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer Transcript |
|---|
In our continuing coverage of the White House crisis, Margaret Warner speaks with Dan Balz of The Washington Post.
MARGARET WARNER: Once again, for an update on today's developments, we return to the Washington Post's newsroom. Joining is Dan Balz, a correspondent on the Post's national staff. Dan, Monica Lewinsky's lawyer, William Ginsburg, said today his immunity talks with Kenneth Starr had broken down. What happened there?
DAN BALZ, Washington Post: Margaret, it was another really confusing day on that front. As you know, these have been on again/off again discussions and negotiations. Mr. Ginsburg met with Mr. Starr this morning for about 45 minutes. It was the first time that they've met in the last week, I believe it is, first face-to-face meeting that they've had. It lasted about 45 minutes. Mr. Ginsburg came out and when was asked about it had no real comment about the substance of the talks. What he said was that he was going back to prepare Monica Lewinsky's defense. Now, that was taken as a sign that these negotiations had, in fact, broken down; that they had reached an impasse; that there was not likely to be an agreement. As the day has gone on, we've gotten some better information on that. The Post reporters who are keeping track of this, Sue Schmidt and Peter Baker, now believe that these negotiations are, in fact, continuing, that there are likely to be more discussions at some point in the future. They do have some things that they still have to resolve, but the best we can attain at this point is that these talks have not broken down; they simply still can't find an agreement.
MARGARET WARNER: Do you or your reporters know what is the sticking point, or the sticking points?
DAN BALZ: At this point, we don't. The only thing we believe is that Mr. Starr is not satisfied with the full story that Monica Lewinsky is prepared to tell and wants to get more detail.
MARGARET WARNER: And if the talks have broken down or can't ever come to fruition, what are Starr's options then? This is a legal procedural matter.
DAN BALZ: Well, he has several options. The first, of course, is that he could grant her--you know--get the courts to grant her immunity and compel her testimony and bring her before the grand jury. The problem with that, as we understand it, is at this point if he were to go ahead and make that decision right now, the story she would tell is the story that he finds not adequate enough for what he wants. He would like something, a full accounting of what she knows, and if these negotiations broke off at this point, the story he would get is not all that he wanted. He could also go ahead and indict her for perjury and possible subordination of perjury and bring her into court that way. But, again, that's not an ideal way for him to proceed on this. The third thing he could do, obviously, is what we think is continuing to go on, which is that he continues to gather evidence on the case looking for corroborating evidence for things that are on the tapes, while continuing negotiations with Mr. Ginsburg.
MARGARET WARNER: All right, now, the other major development today or development was that the judge in Little Rock in the Paula Jones sexual harassment case came out with an interesting ruling. Tell us about that.
DAN BALZ: Well, Judge Wright, after a motion from Kenneth Starr, ruled that the Lewinsky matter cannot be raised in the Paula Jones case.
MARGARET WARNER: At all?
DAN BALZ: At all. She said that "Monica Lewinsky is not essential to the court issues in this case." She also said that admitting any evidence on the Lewinsky matter would "frustrate the timely resolution of the case." Ken Starr had gone in today and asked her to essentially, more or less, shut down all the evidence gathering in the Paula Jones case. He argued that both sides in the case, both the President's lawyers and the Jones' lawyers, were using the Lewinsky matter to their own advantage and, in a sense, were getting in their way. He made reference to the fact that the Jones lawyers were shadowing his own investigation. Now, among the things we know is that, for example, yesterday we talked about Leon Panetta, the former White House chief of staff, testifying before the Starr grand jury, and while he was there, he was served with a subpoena by Paula Jones's lawyers. That's one example. But there are many others. Lorraine Adams, who's tracking the story down in Little Rock for us today, reports that Starr complained that Jones's lawyers had asked for copies of virtually everything that Mr. Starr had asked the White House to provide in the Lewinsky matter. And so from Ken Starr's vantage point, the criminal investigation needs to take precedence. The Paula Jones case was becoming an impediment and an obstacle. And he asked Judge Wright for an end to all evidence gathering. She didn't give him all of that, but she did say that at this point the Lewinsky matter is out of bounds.
MARGARET WARNER: And so what does this, as a practical matter, mean for Paula Jones's case?
DAN BALZ: That's not entirely clear. One of the things that Paula Jones's lawyers have been trying to do is to find evidence of a pattern of practice on the President's part in terms of his behavior with women. And so they have been out looking and interviewing other women to bolster Paula Jones's case. This removes one person from that. Presumably in that sense it would be helpful to the President but we can't say for sure how much this will affect the Jones case in and of itself. The judge said that she wants this case to continue on the course that it's on, which would leave it still set for trial on May 27th.
MARGARET WARNER: Thereby essentially or implicitly, it sounds like, denying the Clinton camp's request that she accelerate it.
DAN BALZ: That would seem to be the case at this point.
MARGARET WARNER: And finally Ken Starr said, though, that he was going to appeal this decision today. If the Lewinsky matter is totally now at least out of the Paula Jones case, why does that matter, why is that not enough for Ken Starr?
DAN BALZ: I tell you, honestly, it's a question that puzzles us at this point. We're trying to find out through Mr. Starr's office whether he, in fact, will definitely appeal this, and, if so, on what grounds. He seems to have gotten most of what he needed today. There's perhaps some other elements that he's concerned about that aren't clear.
MARGARET WARNER: All right, thank you, Dan, again very much.
DAN BALZ: Thank you, Margaret.
JIM LEHRER: The Washington Post's full coverage is available on their Web site at 10:30 Eastern Time and on ours.
| |||||
 | |||||
| |||||
|
|
| |||
| |||||
| |||||
| Support the kind of journalism done by the NewsHour...Become a member of your local PBS station. | |||||
