A new book has just been released about the Kenneth Starr investigation of the Clintons, and it is already causing a stir. The book is entitled, "The Death of American Virtue-Clinton vs Starr" by Ken Gormley, a law professor at Duquesne University. Of particular interest is the alleged role of former Secret Service Director Lewis Merletti during the Lewinsky controversy.
In the book, Monica Lewinsky is quoted as accusing Bill Clinton of lying about their relationship during his grand jury testimony. It is also written that the Special Prosecutor's Office came very close to indicting both President and Mrs. Clinton over the Lewinsky perjury matter and Whitewater respectively. But it is the role of Merletti that could turn out to be the biggest bombshell. Merletti was the head of the White House security detail during Clinton's presidency. In 1997, he was appointed by Clinton to be the director of the agency. In 1998, Merletti went to court to shield his agents from being called to testify before the grand jury regarding the Lewinsky matter. He argued that due to the crucial protection role that the agency played, they should hold a privileged communication status that would prevent them from testifying about anything they had seen or become privy to while protecting the President. That argument was rejected by the Supreme Court.
Lewis Merletti
Merletti, now retired and working as an administrative executive with the Cleveland Browns, was interviewed by the New York Times last Friday and confirmed information in Gormley's book that he was pressured by the FBI to give them information about the president and Lewinsky.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/19/us/politics/19clinton.html
Merletti has made a strong accusation against the FBI in that he was reportedly pressured to tell them what he knew about the Lewinsky matter and accused of having made a deal with Clinton to protect the president in exchange for the top Secret Service post plus being "set up with women". Merletti vehemently denies this charge. The FBI agent who reportedly pressured Merletti has denied Merletti's claim.
So the question that has been raised is; did Merletti purposely cover up Clinton's dalliances in exchange for the top Secret Service post and any other favors, which, as previously stated, he vehemently denies? Of course, I am in no position to say.
Second question: Did the FBI, in fact, accuse Merletti of acting improperly and pressure him to fess up about Clinton and Lewinsky? Again, I am in no position to say. The agent in question has denied it, at least the way Merletti describes it.
Does it matter that the truth come out? Yes. Here we have a serious conflict between two major federal law enforcement agencies.
The Secret Service is a great and proud agency, with whom I worked from time to time as a DEA agent. I still have a certificate of appreciation from a previous Secret Service director, which I hang proudly on my wall.
If the FBI, in fact, accused Merletti of acting improperly as he himself charges, then the suspicions of the FBI of Merletti's actions are themselves serious though yet unproven.
From my own perspective, it would seem to me that if such a confrontation took place, due to Merletti's position, high-ranking FBI officials would also have been present-not just lower-ranking investigating agents. Any such confrontation with the head of another agency would have to involve the top levels of the accusing agency.
In addition, (as I have written before), it seems implausible to me that any woman could get next to any president without the knowledge of the Secret Service, if not their acquiescence. For any president to engage in secret affairs would in and of itself compromise the professionalism of the protective agents.
Secondly, to suggest that agents who guard the president should be shielded or prevented from testifying about what they see or hear due to some sort of confidential communication, executive privilege or any other excuse doesn't hold water in my view. If agents walked in on a president in the act of raping or killing someone, should they not be required to testify about that? Similarly, if agents hold personal and direct knowledge of information that would contradict a president's perjured testimony, why should they not be called to testify? There is simply no legal precedent for the claim that was made; thus, it was properly rejected by the Supreme Court.
To repeat, I am in no position to judge what is true or not true in regard to Mr Merletti's actions or the alleged meeting with the FBI. I do think that it bears clearing up, however. This latest controversy is just another chapter in what will be the final legacy of Bill Clinton as a president. Like all presidents, the final verdict on Clinton is still a couple of generations away. If there is anything to this aspect of Mr Gormley's book, I have a feeling it will be included in future analyses of the Clinton presidency. Hopefully, it will also inspire a course of instruction in the Secret Service's Basic Agent training program.
(I have a hunch it already has.)
No comments:
Post a Comment