Anatomy of a Spin by DOUGLAS BARRICKLOW Saturday, April 15, 2000 DALLAS, TX Recently, The Washington Post interviewed Robert Ray, Ken Starr’s successor as Independent Counsel. Mr. Ray told the Post exactly what he told ABC’s “This Week” a few weeks earlier -- that his office was still considering whether to indict President Clinton for possible law-breaking related to the Lewinsky matter. In the Post’s story, there’s an interesting little snippet concerning Ray’s personnel maneuvers within the Office of Independent Counsel. It reads: “Ray said he recently hired seven new officials to replace people who departed. Overall, the independent counsel's office has 44 employees, including lawyers, investigators and support staff, 10 fewer than it did one year ago.” I suggest that you clip and save this morsel of raw news, because it might just be the last time you’re exposed to such a neutral rendering of Robert Ray’s managerial maintenance of his office.

RELATED LINKS... Yahoo! Impeachment Yahoo! Paula Jones Clinton's 'Stalker' Tale Wash Post Archive Lewinsky Guide   Jump to the FRONT PAGE of...   .

Already, the New York Times writes in an editorial that Robert Ray should just deliver a final report on Lewinsky and “go home,” but, “instead he is beefing up his staff.” The Washington Post’s Richard Cohen writes that, by admitting an indictment of Clinton is still under consideration, Robert Ray is issuing a public warning to the president, “backed by a reconstitution of the office [of independent counsel].” Cohen then tells his readers that Ray has hired “six new lawyers” -- not replacements, mind you -- along with a new investigator and an FBI agent. No where, of course, do we find mention of the overall decrease in the size of the independent counsel’s office. In a way, I suppose, it’s good for Robert Ray to receive an immediate walloping from the media, even as he grants his first interviews. I doubt he expected a blissful honeymoon period; and he certainly won’t get one. But now’s the time to start thinking about ways he can improve things on the public relations front. Ken Starr’s wretched P.R. bumblings can’t have set the bar too high -- the greenest of neophytes could likely better that record. And, fortunately for Mr. Ray, it won’t take a modern Prometheus to foresee from which direction the next volley will come. Back in 1988, Robert Ray was hired to do some prosecutorial drug-busting by an out-going U.S. attorney in New York named Rudy Giuliani. It seems the hiring was the meat of this relationship. Giuliani was on his way out, and so Robert Ray’s stint with Giuliani was brief. In fact, this is probably no more significant than Rick Rockwell waking up to discover himself within 3 degrees of separation from Kevin Bacon (this is actually true -- see for yourself); but smart money says that a future edition of the New York Times will contain a Bob Herbert column suggesting Giuliani and Ray are tighter than Reifenstahl and Hitler. Like Starr, Robert Ray is destined to be labeled a pawn of the Right, at least that will be the understanding at a water cooler near you. Regardless, President Clinton may just find himself under indictment once he leaves office. Hopefully, this will only occur if the evidence is sufficiently overwhelming; meaning that Ray and his office must conclude that they will defeat Clinton in court. If they give themselves less than 80-20 odds, then they shouldn’t indict. Even a strong case that ends in a Clinton victory will leave the independent counsel looking petty at best, and more vulnerable than ever to attacks from the Clinton camp. For now, though, the possible indictment of Clinton remains a peripheral news item. Editorials and op-eds may trickle out in the next week or so, but the onslaught won’t come until an indictment is issued. That is, if an indictment is issued. As the Washington Post pointed out in an April 12 editorial, the notion of indicting President Clinton after he leaves office “isn't as easily dismissed as Mr. Clinton's defenders contend.” But, already, “the historical record will not be without evidence of his misdeeds.” The Post urges Robert Ray to exercise prosecutorial discretion, and avoid the appearance of “piling on” a man who will have become a former president. For those of us who supported Clinton’s Impeachment and removal, a good “piling on” might seem in due order. And a conviction for perjury and/or obstruction of justice would go a long way in silencing those “see no evil” Democrats who think that questions about sex with an office intern, when asked during a sexual harassment suit, are somehow covered by privacy. A pedophile could forward the same argument, and it would have equal relevance. But, should Robert Ray decide against indicting Clinton, that’s... okay. Have faith that future historians -- especially if they have a lick of respect for sexual harassment law -- won’t hold much sympathy for the president’s arguments that Lewinsky was a “private matter.” In the end, I suspect, President Clinton will be considered a mediocre president, a mediocre man -- his weaknesses so simple and common that they fail to meet the plot needs of even a modest tragedy.

Send your comments to Coffee Shop Times editor Douglas Barricklow.