5.11.00
Linda Tripp lawyer Joe Murtha

5.10.00
Alan Dershowitz

5.05.00
Karl Gallant

5.04.00
Ed Koch on Cardinal O'Connor

5.03.00
Rep. David McIntosh

4.27.00
New York Republican Rep. Peter King

4.27.00
Lazaro Gonzalez Lawyer Rich Sharpstein

4.24.00
Timothy Graham

4.21.00
Nicholas Eberstadt

4.20.00
Grover Joseph Rees

4.19.00
Ruth Charlesworth

4.17.00
Ward Connerly

4.13.00
Gonzalez Attorney Jose Garcia-Pedrosa

4.13.00
Center for a Free Cuba’s Otto Reich

4.11.00
Pulitzer Prize Winner Paul Gigot

4.11.00
Nebraska Attorney General Don Stenberg

4.07.00
Writer Stephanie Gutmann

4.05.00
Hillsdale's Larry Arnn

4.04.00
Barry U.'s Sister Jeanne O’Laughlin

4.03.00
Senator Connie Mack

4.03.00
Yale's John Lott

5/11/00 4:15 p.m.
Linda Tripp lawyer Joe Murtha Says...
"[If the prez weren't impeached], she would not be a defendant. "

By Kathryn Jean Lopez, NR associate editor------------lopezk@nationalreview.com

oe Murtha is representing Linda Tripp in a Maryland wiretapping case stemming from her phone conversations with then-White House intern Monica Lewinsky.

National Review: Earlier this week, the Washington Post called on Maryland prosecutors pursuing wiretapping charges against her to "Free Linda Tripp." Were you surprised to hear that from a liberal editorial page?

Joe Murtha: I suppose that we weren’t surprised by the fact that the Post actually endorses the dismissal of the case, in light of the fact that the subject matter of the indictment may have an adverse impact on the President and those associated with the President.

NR: What is the case about, now that the judge has limited Lewinsky’s testimony? Why, do you think, was it limited and the case not thrown out, as some were suggesting it would be?

Murtha: Her testimony was suppressed in all but one aspect, and that is whether or not she consented to the tape recording. The reason the judge did not suppress all of her testimony is because her election to consent or not consent to the tape recording was something that never would have been influenced by her association with the office of the independent counsel [since it occurred before she was investigated by the independent counsel]. Essentially, what the judge said [on this question] was that there is no way that Monica Lewinsky could have been influenced by information that came from the office of the independent counsel [since the investigation had not yet begun].

Also, the judge found Lewinsky not to be a credible witness. So, when Lewinsky says, I essentially had this epiphany when I read in Newsweek the transcript of a tape recording including someone who was (supposedly) me, I recognized it immediately. But she never indicated that to the state prosecutor’s office when specifically requested to make such a comment, before she became involved with the office of the independent counsel. Nowhere in her book does she talk about this incredibly significant event, although she leaves very few stones unturned in other aspects of her life. The judge noted that too.

NR: What is left to convict on at this point?

Murtha: Well, they have evidence of people who believe that Linda Tripp was tape recording, but they have no one who purportedly heard this tape or could identify this tape.

NR: These are women who played bridge with Linda Tripp?

Murtha: Exactly. They were acquaintances of Linda Tripp.

But the important part was that there still is the remaining legal challenge as to whether or not they can ever even introduce the tape that is in their possession, because the tape that the state prosecutor has came from the offices of the independent counsel. And that tape was identified, as far as the date is concerned, as a result of Linda Tripp’s immunized cooperation. So, the real piece of evidence, we believe, can’t be used as the corpus delicti; the piece of evidence that is the most important is also tainted.

NR: Why are prosecutors pursuing this?

Murtha: Well, we’ve always pleaded that it has been a politically motivated prosecution. And they won. They could beat the grand jury for over a year in a kind of criminal matter that is rarely prosecuted in the state of Maryland. We believe that if the information which Mrs. Tripp provided to the offices of the independent counsel hadn’t resulted in the impeachment of the president of the United States, she would not be a defendant in Maryland.

NR: Earlier this week, Sen. James Inhofe, Armed Services Committee chairman, called Defense Secretary Cohen to discipline Defense Department spokesman Ken Bacon for releasing the FBI file information on Linda Tripp. Has Mrs. Tripp commented on this in the last day or so? This is a long time in coming. Do you anticipate any reprimand?

Murtha: Her civil attorney has previously filed an action against Mr. Bacon, but she has not commented on Sen. Inhofe’s comments. We wholly endorse, and actually applaud, the efforts of Sen. Inhofe and we’re very, very happy that someone has the courage to actually ask the questions that no one else is asking, in light of the fact that actually there was a person who was criminally prosecuted for essentially doing the same thing during the Nixon administration; Charles Colson was prosecuted for doing the same thing.

Columns / Current Issue / Goldberg File / Nota Bene
Washington Bulletin / Subscribe / Ad Info / Home