● While they were at it, the Clintons also wanted to destroy the Post. (p 16)
Die-hard Clinton defenders will surely note that Stern’s attorney, Larry Klayman, is a conservative activist who, according to the Washington Post, made his name largely by filing multiple anti-Clinton release-of-information lawsuits (regarding persons such as Vince Foster, Ron Brown, Kathleen Willey, Gennifer Flowers, and Janet Reno) as the founder of Judicial Watch.
Then again, as the Monica Lewinsky affair demonstrated all too painfully, Clinton has a history of giving in to his troublesome appetites, political consequences be damned. If Klayman gets subpoena power and starts dragging new information about Bill into the light of day, Hillary’s presidential campaign could take a serious hit. (For his part, Stern tells the Phoenix that other aspects of Klayman’s background — e.g., suing Halliburton on behalf of shareholders and naming vice-president and ex-Halliburton CEO Dick Cheney in the complaint — show he’s more than a partisan hack.)
Thanks to the earlier credulity of the Times, the Daily News, and the Wall Street Journal (which ran an op-ed by Burkle on the purported scandal on April 12, 2006) — and the general lack of reportorial follow-up when Stern wasn’t charged — the New York media probably won’t come out of this looking great, either. These outlets might be disinclined to give too much play to a case that puts their own journalism in an unflattering light, especially if details of their own sausage-making process start to emerge. That certainly seems to be the case so far: while the Times devoted a great deal of ink to Burkle’s charges, the paper barely took note of Stern’s new lawsuit, reporting it in a 142-word Associated Press brief that ignored the Times’ previous reporting on the subject. (That’s 142 more words than the Daily News gave it.)
Given Hillary’s prominence in the front-loaded 2008 presidential race, though, it won’t be possible to run away from this story for long. There will, of course, be moves to dismiss this suit. But if these efforts fail, look for a settlement — which could bind all parties to silence — before the deposition process becomes aggressive. Even if a settlement is reached, an outcome predicted by attorney and Phoenix “Freedom Watch” columnist Harvey Silverglate, the public could be privy to revelations that seriously damage Hillary Clinton’s campaign.
Hoping for a sneak preview of revelations to come, the Phoenix asked Stern to elaborate on his contention that his run-in with Burkle was part of a bigger Clintonian plot aimed at silencing the media by making him a cautionary example. For now, though, he’s not talking. “As far as any specific allegations, on that score, I think I have to let the complaint speak for itself,” Stern replied.
