Sue Hartigan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
The Hubbell Tapes and Political Squabbling
Evidence of a Cover-Up May Be Lost Amid Spats
Tuesday, May 5, 1998
(This is an unedited, uncorrected transcript.)
ANNOUNCER May 5, 1998.
TED KOPPEL, ABC NEWS (VO) The Hubbell tapes seemed to hint
at a cover—up.
WEBSTER HUBBELL So I need to roll over one more time.
SUZANNA HUBBELL No.
TED KOPPEL (VO) But Congressman Burton only released excerpts
and that gave the White House the ammunition it needed.
REP HENRY WAXMAN, (D), CALIFORNIA, GOVERNMENT
REFORM AND OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE It’s editing for
political purposes and that’s what is so offensive.
TED KOPPEL (VO) What wasn’t heard was Hubbell’s support for
the
First Lady.
WEBSTER HUBBELL She just had no idea what was going on. She
didn’t participate in any of this.
EJ DIONNE, “THE WASHINGTON POST” A lot of people have
said that President Clinton is blessed with great enemies and
that in Mr
Burton’s case, he makes it very easy for the White House to
say this is
not a fair guy.
TED KOPPEL (VO) Tonight, the bumbling of the Hubbell tapes,
how
evidence of a cover—up may be lost amid political squabbling.
ANNOUNCER From ABC News, this is Nightline. Reporting from
Washington, Ted Koppel.
TED KOPPEL We return tonight to the Hubbell tapes—150 hours of
telephone conversations recorded at a federal prison in
Cumberland,
Maryland. Webster Hubbell, who had been serving as associate
attorney
general under Janet Reno, was serving out his term for
defrauding clients
while he was a partner at the Rose Law Firm in Little Rock,
Arkansas.
He could probably have avoided prison by cooperating more
fully with
independent counsel Kenneth Starr in his investigation of the
Whitewater
affair.
Publicly, Hubbell has insisted all along that he knows nothing
that might
incriminate his old friend and law partner, Hillary Clinton,
or his friend
and golfing partner, the President. But in those prison
telephone
conversations subpoenaed by Republican Congressman Dan
Burton’s
committee, there appeared to be hints, suggestions and
intimations that
Hubbell was covering up for his friends. Then, over this past
weekend,
those tapes themselves came into question. Had they been
selectively
leaked, doctored, edited? Was there, in fact, material
deliberately held
back that might have actually been helpful to the Clintons in
their ongoing
legal battle with Kenneth Starr?
Here’s the latest from Nightline correspondent Chris Bury.
WEBSTER HUBBELL I’m not telling anybody what I did or who,
what they paid me.
CHRIS BURY, ABC NEWS (VO) Last July, the Justice Department
turned over tapes of Hubbell’s calls from prison. Last week,
Congressman Dan Burton, whose committee had subpoenaed those
tapes, released partial excerpts of 54 conversations. The
headline—Hubbell’s, apparent reluctance to say anything that
might
expose the Clintons to prosecution.
WEBSTER HUBBELL I won’t raise those allegations that might
open
it up to Hillary.
CHRIS BURY (VO) On Nightline, where the tapes were first
broadcast, Congressman Burton insisted they had been edited
only to
protect Webb Hubbell’s private life. (clip from Nightline,
4/30/98)
REP DAN BURTON, (R), GOVERNMENT REFORM AND
OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE Yes. We went through the tapes to
make sure that we edited out as much personal information as
possible,
personal conversations between Webb and his wife and his
family and so
forth.
TED KOPPEL But has anything that we had, for example, and that
we
had on this program tonight, was that taken out of context?
Might it have
been interpreted in a different way if we’d heard the entire
conversation?
REP DAN BURTON No, and if Mr Hubbell’s attorney or anybody
complains about the content that you put on the air, we’ll be
happy to
divulge the whole tapes and let him and you look at them and
listen to
them.
CHRIS BURY (on camera) Sure enough, the complaints came fast
and
furious. The White House, Democrats in Congress and Hubbell’s
lawyer
accused Congressman Burton of playing dirty pool. They made
three
fundamental charges—that Burton had doctored the tapes,
selectively
released material most damaging to the White House and
violated
Hubbell’s privacy.
RAHM EMANUEL, SENIOR ADVISOR TO THE PRESIDENT
I don’t remember ever in the history of Congress a chairman of
a
committee altering and doctoring and selectively putting out
information
that changes both the meaning and content of those tapes.
CHRIS BURY (VO) Were the tapes really doctored, as White House
officials have charged? Not according to Henry Waxman, the
ranking
Democrat on Burton’s committee.
REP HENRY WAXMAN It appears to be a selective editing of tapes
in order to give a sense of the conversation that is
one—sided. It is not
doctoring them in the sense, in the view of putting in
different words, but
when you take out sections of a conversation that would give a
different
impression, it’s editing for political purposes and that’s
what is so
offensive.
CHRIS BURY (VO) Waxman cites one excerpt in which Hubbell’s
wife, Suzy, appears worried that he may sue the Rose Law Firm
and
expose Hillary Clinton to accusations of over billing. Mrs
Hubbell refers
to Marcia Scott, a political deputy to the President.
SUZANNA HUBBELL Well, I’m the one that has to try and explain
to
Marcia. She said you’re not going to get any public support if
you open
up Hillary. Well, by public support I know exactly what she
means. I’m
not stupid.
WEBSTER HUBBELL And I sat there and spent Saturday with you
saying I would not do that. I won’t raise those allegations
that might open
it up to Hillary. And you know that. We talked about that.
SUZANNA HUBBELL Yes. But then I get all this back from Marcia,
who is ratcheting it up and making it sound like, you know, if
Webb goes
ahead and sues the firm back, then any support I have at the
White
House is gone. I mean that’s what I’m hearing. I’m hearing the
squeeze
play.
WEBSTER HUBBELL So I need to roll over one more time.
REP HENRY WAXMAN There is one instance where he put out a
tape saying that Webb Hubbell was going to try to roll over in
order not
to implicate Hillary Clinton. But he omitted the next sentence
where
Webb Hubbell said of course Hillary Clinton knew nothing about
the
billing practices at their law firm.
CHRIS BURY (VO) In fact, it is not the next sentence, but 45
minutes
later in a separate conversation that Hubbell says Mrs Clinton
would not
be vulnerable to charges of over billing. This segment was not
initially
released by the Burton committee.
WEBSTER HUBBELL OK? Hillary’s not, Hillary isn’t—the only
thing
is people say why didn’t she know what was going on. And I
wish she
never paid any attention to what was going on at the firm.
That’s the
gospel truth. She just had no idea what was going on. She
didn’t
participate in any of this.
REP HENRY WAXMAN I think you have to look at a conversation in
its entirety and not just have a part of it out there that’s
most harmful to
Webb Hubbell and Hillary Clinton.
CHRIS BURY (VO) In a letter to Congressman Waxman, Burton
conceded that the remarks Mr Hubbell made about Mrs Clinton
should
have been included in the transcript. But the major news
organizations,
including Nightline, also failed to report a cryptic line in
the original tapes
that appears more supportive of Mrs Clinton.
WEBSTER HUBBELL You know, when it all boils down, they can’t
say she [Hillary] did anything.
CHRIS BURY (VO) But why the apparent discrepancy in the
Hubbells’ conversations about whether or not Mrs Clinton is
vulnerable?
EJ DIONNE My hunch is when we listen to all of them, maybe
there’s
something terribly damning on them, but probably there’s going
to be a
certain ambiguity about them in part because Webb Hubbell is a
smart
guy and he knew he was being taped. So who knows if these
tapes are
going to be decisive.
CHRIS BURY (VO) Late yesterday, in the media feeding frenzy,
Burton’s office released another 43 conversations and it
promises more
tomorrow. Much of the material is personal, but in one June
1996
conversation with his sister, Hubbell appears concerned about
betraying
the President in a book he is writing.
WEBSTER HUBBELL I don’t feel like, you know, that anybody can
say that I’m, you know, betraying confidences if I wait until
after the
election. You know, you know me. I have a hard time saying
anything
bad about the devil.
CHRIS BURY (on camera) The release of the latest batch of
tapes has
revived accusations that Congressman Burton is invading Webb
Hubbell’s privacy. But on that point, the law appears to be on
Burton’s
side, despite the protests of Hubbell’s attorney.
JOHN NIELDS, ATTORNEY FOR WEBSTER HUBBELL
(From “This Week”) These are tapes that have confidential
conversations
between husband and wife, between client and lawyer. They are
covered
by the Privacy Act. They are not supposed to be in the public
domain.
CHRIS BURY (VO) But the Privacy Act specifically excludes
disclosure to either house of Congress, any committee or
subcommittee.
Congress has wide authority to release information. What’s
more, as a
federal prisoner, Hubbell’s rights were severely limited,
according to
Georgetown University law professor Viet Dinh.
VIET DINH There are signs in most of our prisons, I believe
specifically
in the prison that Mr Hubbell was incarcerated in, Cumberland
Prison,
and in the rooms that he was visiting from, posting that,
indeed, these
conversations were being recorded and monitored.
CHRIS BURY (on camera) In fact, the Justice Department asked
Burton to safeguard the tapes, but that recommendation is not
binding.
The fine legal points, of course, matter less than the
political reality. In
appearing to manipulate the Hubbell tapes for partisan
advantage,
Congressman Burton has given the White House plenty of
ammunition.
Now the tapes will be remembered less for what they revealed
than for
the controversy they generated and the President once again
has been
blessed by the bumbling of his enemies.
Ted?
TED KOPPEL Now, there does appear to have been a legal
decision
handed down today that is not quite as advantageous to the
President.
What can you tell us? Executive privilege.
CHRIS BURY Executive privilege appears to be a significant
defeat, if
a temporary one, for the President. Judge Johnson, the judge
in the grand
jury, the Ken Starr grand jury, has ruled that presidential
aides cannot
invoke executive privilege in their conversations with the
President or the
First Lady about Monica Lewinsky. Now, we believe that three
aides,
Bruce Lindsey, the deputy counsel, Sidney Blumenthal, a
communications advisor, and Nancy Hernreich, the President’s
personal
secretary (?), have all cited executive privilege in refusing
to answer
certain questions.
TED KOPPEL Now the irony, of course, is that the President has
never
confirmed that he has invoked executive privilege. He’s
referred
reporters to his lawyers and his lawyers aren’t talking.
CHRIS BURY That’s right. No one from the President down has
even
acknowledged whether or not the President has invoked
executive
privilege. This decision may force their hand because
presumably the
White House is going to want to appeal and then this opinion
will have to
be made public.
TED KOPPEL And then there is talk of some maneuvering up on
Capitol Hill involving our guest this evening. What can you
tell me about
that?
CHRIS BURY We’ve heard that Democrats on the Hill, perhaps led
by
Congressman Waxman and Dick Gephardt, would like to introduce
a
sort of resolution on the floor, a privilege resolution that
would seek to
remove Congressman Burton from the investigation investigating
campaign finance abuses. Dick Armey, the Republican majority
leader,
said he hadn’t heard anything about that today.
TED KOPPEL Well, we’ll talk to Congressman Waxman about that
in
just a moment. I should tell you that we invited Congressman
Dan
Burton, the chairman of the House Government Reform and
Oversight
Committee, to appear on tonight’s broadcast. He declined. But
as I say,
when we come back, we’ll be joined by the committee’s ranking
Democrat, Congressman Henry Waxman.
(Commercial Break)
TED KOPPEL Joining us now from Capitol Hill, Democratic
Congressman Henry Waxman.
Congressman, clearly you feel, as do a number of Democrats,
that Dan
Burton is altogether too partisan in his zeal to bring the
President down
and I’m told that you and Dick Gephardt have been discussing
at least
possibility of a plan. You want to tell us about that?
REP HENRY WAXMAN (Capitol Hill) It’s possible we could
introduce a resolution asking that Dan Burton no longer head
up this
investigation. I hope it doesn’t come to that because I hope
that Newt
Gingrich and the Republican leadership look at the statements
that Dan
Burton has made and how he’s conducted this investigation, how
he’s
acted as if this is his investigation alone, that he can do
whatever he wants
and come to the conclusion that he’s just not the right man
for the job.
It’s a very sad situation, really, because we should not have
come to this
point where a chairman has said one day that the President is
a scumbag,
as Dan Burton commented, and he’s out to get him and then a
week later
he’s distorted the transcript of the tapes. I might have
misspoken before.
He never altered any tapes but he took the transcript and
distorted it in
order to help his political point of view.
TED KOPPEL What kind of a parliamentary procedure can be used
to
do that? You folks are not in the majority. How do you get rid
of the
chairman?
REP HENRY WAXMAN There’s no way we can get rid of the
chairman, either as chairman or heading this particular
investigation if the
Republican leadership is going to stand behind him. And last
week, Newt
Gingrich said that, when he was asked to comment about Dan
Burton’s
statement that he was out to get the President and that he was
a
scumbag, Newt Gingrich said well some people thought that
statement
was too harsh, but others thought it was too soft, but he was
going to
stand with Dan Burton because he’s an honest man. Well, I
don’t think
this was a very honest thing to do, to misrepresent what was
said in tapes
that should never have been made—should never have been made
public. They were personal conversations that Webb Hubbell had
with
his wife and lawyer and personal friends.
TED KOPPEL You may be correct from an ethical point of view,
but
from a strictly legal point of view, there is absolutely
nothing to preclude
it, is there?
REP HENRY WAXMAN If it were done by someone other than a
member of Congress, it would have been an abomination.
TED KOPPEL I mean, but it was done by a member of Congress ...
REP HENRY WAXMAN Well ...
TED KOPPEL—and he had every right to subpoena those tapes and
as
I understand it, he has every legal right to release those
tapes.
REP HENRY WAXMAN He had every right to subpoena the tapes.
He did not have the legal authority to disclose them. He
violated the rules
of the committee and the rules of the House in making them
public and
had he done it as a non—member of Congress, it would have been
a
violation of federal law.
TED KOPPEL Congressman, the charge of partisanship, well, you
know, has obviously been made against you as well as against
Dan
Burton and it is quite clear that there is a great deal of
partisanship on this
committee that makes one wonder, as we watch from the outside
here,
whether anyone at all is really interested in getting to the
truth of the
matter.
Let’s talk about some of the, about some of the aspects of
those tapes
and some of the intimations that were made in those tapes. For
example,
the business of the $100,000 that was given by the Riadys, by
the Lippo
Group to Mr Hubbell just before John Huang went from working
for the
Riady group to working for the Commerce Department. Now, the
timing
may be purely coincidental, there may be no connection
whatsoever. On
the other hand, there may be a connection and if there is,
don’t you think
that’s something your committee should be interested in?
REP HENRY WAXMAN I think it’s something that ought to be
investigated by someone who’s doing a responsible
prosecutorial job.
That’s what we’re paying Ken Starr to investigate, whether
there was
hush money or whether there was something improper done. He’s
had
these tapes and he can use these tapes as evidence in any
trial. There are
things in those tapes that are disturbing to me, but I don’t
know the
answer to them. But it’s clear our committee is not trying to
find the
answers. The committee chairman is simply trying to use what
parts of
the tapes that he could put out and try to mislead people into
thinking the
conclusion is to be reached one way as opposed to another.
TED KOPPEL Well, let’s talk about the validity, then, of the
committee
in terms of examining this at all, but first we’re going to
take a short
break. I’ll be back with Congressman Henry Waxman in just a
moment.
(Commercial Break)
TED KOPPEL And we’re back once again with Congressman Henry
Waxman.
You seem to be suggesting, Congressman, not just that you
think Dan
Burton is ill suited to the job of chairing this
investigation, but that the
committee as a whole probably shouldn’t be touching it with a
10—foot
pole.
REP HENRY WAXMAN Not the way this investigation has been
structured and conducted. Early on, I suggested that we do a
House—Senate investigation, not to do duplicative
investigations and
waste money, and then I suggested to the chairman we do it on
a
bipartisan basis. And he pretty much said no, he wanted to do
his
investigation his way and we spent $6 million on this
investigation. It has
been a very, very partisan investigation and it’s been a
reckless one.
TED KOPPEL Given the temper of the times it seemed to be kind
of an
extraordinary suggestion that you were making a couple of
minutes ago
and that is the notion that you felt that this investigation
appropriately
rests in the hands of Kenneth Starr. You may be the only
Democrat in
town who’s willing to say that.
REP HENRY WAXMAN Well, it doesn’t appropriately belong in a
committee where the chairman is just—he’s the judge, he’s the
jury, he’s
the prosecutor and he’s even the censor of what the public
will have
available to it.
TED KOPPEL Ken Starr has certainly been attacked about as
vociferously as any independent counsel has ever been attacked
and it is
quite clear that there are a lot of people from the White
House on down
that are trying to undermine his effectiveness. So if he can’t
do it and if
Congress can’t do it, then the investigation would just go
away, wouldn’t
it?
REP HENRY WAXMAN Let me say that first of all, Congress should
be investigating but they should be doing it fairly and
honestly and we
haven’t had that kind of investigation.
TED KOPPEL You’re saying your committee can’t do it?
REP HENRY WAXMAN That’s right. I think Senator Thompson tried
to do a credible investigation in the Senate.
TED KOPPEL Is there a committee in the House that could or are
you
suggesting to ...
REP HENRY WAXMAN Our committee has the jurisdiction and we
should have done a fair investigation and we didn’t. Now,
there are
prosecutors, there’s the Justice Department, there are
prosecutorial
agencies. We have an independent counsel law. I think it’s a,
there’s a
problem with the independent counsel. But we’re paying Ken
Starr
millions of dollars to run an investigation and let’s see what
he’s going to
come up with. He’s indicted Webb Hubbell on tax charges. All
right. He
has the authority to do that. They’ll go to court and they’ll
have to prove
their case. He’s had these tapes and he hasn’t charged Webb
Hubbell
with any kind of cover—up of anything that I’ve heard of.
TED KOPPEL You have had a chance now, I assume, to look at
much,
if not most, if not all of the transcripts of those 150 hours
of telephone
conversations. Is there not material in there that troubles
you, too?
REP HENRY WAXMAN Yes. Quite frankly there are statements in
there that are troubling, like the statement that Webb Hubbell
says that
he’s going to have to roll over. I don’t know what that means,
although
when you put it in the context of what was said later in that
same
conversation, even though a lot was said in between, it seems
like he’s
indicating that he’s not rolling over to protect Hillary
Clinton because she
didn’t know anything about the billing practices at the law
firm.
Look, I don’t know what to make of those statements. I think
that they
ought to be examined and looked at in the context of other
evidence and
that’s what Ken Starr is supposed to be doing. I’m not going
to say that
he’s not doing a good job until we see what kind of job he’s
done and
then he has to present it to a court of law. But we shouldn’t
have a
congressman become ...
TED KOPPEL Or to congressmen, unfortunately, and then there’s
a
very good chance that it will end up with another committee
that may
even rival your own in terms of partisanship.
REP HENRY WAXMAN That’s not going to be Webb Hubbell. He’s
not going to be subject to impeachment.
TED KOPPEL Not Webb Hubbell. You’re exactly right.
REP HENRY WAXMAN And so, if there’s a case against ...
TED KOPPEL But when Ken Starr finally comes up with his final
report and hands that over to Congress, as he almost
inevitably will, you
know where it’s scheduled to go.
REP HENRY WAXMAN Yes, but we’re talking about the Webb
Hubbell tapes and you asked me if there are things in there
that are
troubling.
TED KOPPEL Right.
REP HENRY WAXMAN And I said there are some things that are
troubling. I don’t know what to make of it and it ought to be
investigated
by somebody who’s going to decide if there’s enough evidence
to
prosecute if he’s done something wrong. And I don’t think our
committee is capable of doing that and that’s what we’re
paying Ken
Starr $40 million to investigate and to move forward on.
TED KOPPEL Well, we’ve made some news tonight. We have a
Democratic congressman calling for Ken Starr to get more, even
more
autonomy than he has right now.
REP HENRY WAXMAN He’s got plenty of autonomy. Let’s just get
him to do his job and get on with it already.
TED KOPPEL All right, Congressman Waxman, thanks very much
indeed.
--
Two rules in life:
1. Don't tell people everything you know.
2.
Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues
