Marcia Mellows
USA
Today and the Washington Post lead with the grand jury appearance of
Monica's mom. But to the New York
Times and Los Angeles Times there's something much sexier than the
presidential love Jones--the Dow Jones. The NYT lead reports that
American households have more of their fortunes invested in the stock market
than at any time in the last 50 years, and maybe ever.
USAT reports that Marcia Lewis (nee Lewinsky) is due back in the
grand jury room today after being compelled to answer questions yesterday about
her daughter's relationship with President Clinton. The paper reports that
according to some people in the know, Lewis was "aware of a relationship
between Lewinsky and the president." Also, that Lewis was aware her daughter
was "infatuated" with Clinton. Lewinsky is scheduled to appear before the same
grand jury later this week. And the dailies all quote her lawyer's comment that
she will testify if his attempts to quash the grand jury subpoena are
unsuccessful. "She has," says William Ginsburg, "no intention of falling on her
sword." Note to Ginsburg: ixnay on the sword metaphors.
The WP adds that Lewis was privy to Lewinsky's taped account of her
relationship with Clinton, and that her reaction to her daughter's attempt to
conceal it from outsiders was, "What's the big deal? So she lied and convinced
someone else to lie." The paper effortlessly ticks off several of the scandal's
other new poontangents: a federal judge's denial of Clinton's request for a
speed-up of the Paula Jones case, another federal judge's allowing Kenneth
Starr to get his hands on a sealed deposition made by the allegedly
lipstick-smeared and disheveled Oval Office visitor Kathleen Willey, and the
turn-over to Starr of boxes of Jones case materials about yet other women
thought linked to Clinton.
But the Post goes a bit overboard with 120-plus words on an alleged
conversation between Lewis and Lewinsky's former White House supervisor that
reveal nothing about the conversation except that it lasted less than five
minutes and was not confrontational. The NYT does a little better,
saying the discussion was Mom's inquiry into why Monica was transferred out of
the White House. The Post blind-sources this episode, while the
NYT credits it by name to Lewis' fianc,.
None of the papers' accounts addresses a natural question: If spouses can't
be compelled to testify against each other, how come a mother (especially one
who's apparently her child's "closest confidante") can be compelled to testify
against a daughter? Why, in the law, is water thicker than blood?
The Wall Street Journal recently caught a lot of hell for its
ultimately retracted story that a White House steward had told the Starr grand
jury the president had been alone with Ms. Lewinsky. Well, on today's WP
front, a retired Secret Service agent is saying the same thing.
The possible Iraq attack takes a number and waits. Yes, it gets the off-lead
at USAT and a spot on the NYT front. However, at the WP , the
Secretary of Defense's various burnoose conferences slip to page 23. But
"Titanic"'s 14 Oscar nominations are front page at the Post and
LAT .
The WSJ reports that, thus far, CBS' Winter Olympic ratings are about
17 percent below what was promised to advertisers, raising the prospect of
expensive givebacks to them.
An FOTP sends along this AP dispatch from that ex-midshipwomen's murder
trial: "On Monday, jurors in the trial appeared bored or puzzled by the defense
team's tactic of presenting a number of witnesses." Hmmm.what were they
expecting?
The NYT scrupulously corrects a prior misstatement of the words
making up the acronym of the James Bond nemesis organization "SPECTRE." Which
is particularly odd given the frequency with which Times readers are
left seriously confused about many of the paper's more significant alleged
redemptions and original sins. Here's a tip, though: "failure to attribute
phrasing" means "plagiarism."
