25 years ago: How Larry Flynt and I helped to save The Clinton Presidency (Part 2)
The phone call, the bombshell
NOTE: In the cartoon above, a talented Clinton hater, name unknown, falsely depicted Larry Flynt and me, along with Sid Blumenthal and James Carville, receiving instructions from President Bill Clinton. To be clear, during the impeachment drama, Flynt and I had no communication—directly or indirectly, on or off the record—with anyone in the White House.
Twenty-five years ago this week, the Republican-controlled U.S. House of Representatives impeached President Bill Clinton on December 19, 1998, setting the stage for a trial in the U.S. Senate. However, coming out of nowhere, porn king Larry Flynt and I, two admitted sinners, entered the fray and helped to derail the dreams and schemes of the GOP and the Moral Majority to remove the President from office.
This is the second of a series of columns about a little-known backstage drama in the Clinton impeachment battle, focusing on December 16-19, 1998. The series—featuring updated excerpts from my memoir, Confessions of a Guerrilla Writer—will resume during the twenty-fifth anniversary of the Senate trial, which began on January 7, 1999, and ended with the President’s acquittal a month later on February 12.
Larry and I were part of the action from beginning to end, and we made a difference.
See: Part 1
My clandestine call on the morning of December 17 ignites a political firestorm
Early on the morning of December 17, 1998, Speaker-Designate Bob Livingston's mistress called to inform me that—contrary to the understanding I thought we had agreed to the night before—she had decided to contact an unnamed person about her conversations with me and what she had learned about The Flynt Project. And then she hung up.
I was stunned by this news but could not keep her on the phone long enough to find out exactly what she had done. Had she just double-crossed me or begun her self-destructive plan to try to stop the impeachment, single-handedly?[1]
Regardless, after hearing that she had made her move, I immediately decided in self-defense to make one of my own. Acting unilaterally—without talking to Larry Flynt, Allan MacDonell, or our attorney, Alan Isaacman—I made a call, too. (I will never give up whom I called—although I will say that it was not to anyone connected with the White House or anyone who played an official role in the impeachment proceedings.)
About an hour after that conversation—which would set in motion the dramatic and shocking events that followed—I took the Amtrak Metroliner to New York to deliver one of several eulogies at the memorial service for my old friend, Jon Kwitny of the Wall Street Journal, who had died of cancer on Thanksgiving Day.
On the train, I picked up the op‑ed page of the Boston Globe, which was on an empty seat, and read a column by John Ellis, a first cousin of Texas Governor George W. Bush, who wrote in his first paragraph what many people were already saying:
Iraq will not save him. The U.S. House of Representatives will impeach President William Clinton. The vote will break down more or less on party lines. As time passes, Clinton’s support in the U.S. Senate will evaporate, leading inexorably to his resignation.
I tossed the newspaper where I had found it, already realizing that the President's condition was grave. In fact, on December 17, many people in authority believed, like Ellis, that the President was finished. He would be impeached by the end of the week, and then he would either resign or be removed from office after the Senate trial—even though the votes were not yet there to convict him.
Because I was busy seeing so many friends and colleagues in New York for Kwitny's memorial service, I did not check my answering machine until 1:30 A.M. on Friday, December 18. When I did, I received the big news—from Flynt, MacDonell, and a couple of close friends who knew of my still-secret involvement with Flynt—about what had happened since I left Washington the previous morning after making my clandestine call.
Journalist Jim VandeHei of Roll Call, a newspaper covering events on Capitol Hill, reported that Bob Livingston was about to be outed by Larry Flynt. Interviewed by VandeHei—whom I do not know and have never spoken with—Livingston, who called the reporter at 6:00 P.M., said:
I have decided to inform my colleagues and constituents that during my 33‑year marriage to my wife, Bonnie, I have on occasion strayed from my marriage and doing so nearly cost me my marriage and my family.
I want to assure everyone that these indiscretions were not with employees on my staff and I have never been asked to testify under oath about them.
Earlier that afternoon, Livingston had admitted his indiscretions to the House Republican Caucus, saying that he had been "Larry Flynt‑ed." Reportedly, the gasps from the closed‑door caucus were audible down the hall.
In his prepared statement—clearly directed at Flynt and me—Livingston said: “To those who are investigating me or others of my colleagues, please understand that I will not be intimidated by these efforts. These efforts will not deter me from performing my sworn duty under the Constitution as a member of Congress.”
Concluding his remarks, Livingston told his Republican colleagues, "My fate is in your hands."
The House Republicans responded by giving him a standing ovation.
The reaction to Livingston's admission was swift and severe. Many in Congress refused to believe that Flynt did not have the White House's help in our pursuit of Livingston. Like his Republican colleagues—Representatives Gerald Weller of Illinois and J.D. Hayworth of Arizona—Representative John Linder of Georgia told reporters, "This is what the White House calls a 'scorched earth' policy."
Another right-wing congressman, Dana Rohrabacher (R-California), added that the President's supporters "have done everything they could to try to intimidate people. . . . Every time you turn around they're trying to find any little thing to dig up on everybody. This is the worst God‑awful tactic that I've ever seen by anybody on the planet."
In other words, the Republicans' dishonest and malicious tactics during their six‑year assault against the President Bill Clinton and First Lady Hillary Clinton had boomeranged. And they were now whining about it.
White House press secretary Joe Lockhart insisted:
There is no evidence that anyone at the White House had anything to do with this story. Any suggestion to the contrary, without evidence, might be irresponsible.
It doesn't surprise me the Republicans are doing this. What is surprising is that the media will roll over as easily as they do and assume the burden is on us to prove we had no involvement.
Flynt, completely in the dark about the call I had made and unable to reach me, issued a boilerplate public statement of his own, saying:
I don't take my marching orders from the White House. I did this on my own to expose the hypocrisy in Washington. If they're going to be passing judgment on the President, they shouldn't have any skeletons in their own closets. . . . When our report comes out, Clinton's going to look like Mary Poppins compared to the rest of these guys.
In short, everyone in America—including the media in and out of Washington—was entirely caught off guard by my revelations about Livingston, . . . even though very few people that knew it was me who was behind them.
Returning to my home in Washington on the morning of December 18, the day after Livingston's confession, Jim VandeHei of Roll Call, the reporter who broke the Livingston story, was interviewed by Katie Couric on the Today Show.
Couric: So, tell me how you first learned about Bob Livingston’s indiscretions, if you will.
VandeHei: We had learned yesterday afternoon that Speaker-to-be Bob Livingston was going to inform the Republican conference that, in fact, he had had extramarital affairs, fearing that they were going to be disclosed in a publication such as Hustler. . . . [H]e wanted to let them know and he wanted to be the one that informed his colleagues.
Couric: Was Roll Call itself working on a story as well?
VandeHei: No. I want to stress that we do not report on the sex lives of members of Congress. We only became interested when I learned that Speaker-to-be Livingston would possibly resign his post if members were disgusted by his revelation. . . .
Couric: Do you think we’re going to hear more revelations of this nature in the next few days and weeks?
VandeHei: My understanding is we are going to hear several more revelations. Larry Flynt has hinted that there are many more to come. And I know there are a lot of members of Congress that are probably shaking in their boots right now.
Tim Russert, the Washington bureau chief of NBC News, also appeared on Today and was asked to assess the political atmosphere after Livingston's admission.
Russert: The biggest fear here is "scorched earth." People are looking over their shoulders, wondering what is coming next and what are politicians doing to themselves. It is almost a season for cannibals. The entire foundation of the system seems to be shaken. People are very nervous in Washington as the impeachment debate begins.
Couric: You talk about scorched earth. People are wondering, Tim, when does it end? We heard about Henry Hyde's "youthful indiscretion" in recent months. Now we're hearing about Bob Livingston. Larry Flynt, apparently, says he has dirt on ten more Republicans, so, I mean, this whole atmosphere must be so strange.
Russert: Katie, it is a policy called M. A. D.: Mutually Assured Destruction. And unless people call a truce, they realize there are going to be more victims for the next several months and years.
Early on Saturday morning, December 19—the day of the impeachment vote against President Clinton—the Washington Post placed a story on its website, "GOP Support for Livingston Appears Solid." Reporter Eric Pianin predicted that Livingston, who appeared quiet during the impeachment debate the day before, "continued to maintain solid support among most GOP members and appears headed for easy election next month to succeed Rep. Newt Gingrich as speaker. An aide said Republicans have been 'incredibly supportive' and that many are saying: 'Let's get back to business.'"
But Pianin's reporting was hardly prophetic.
In contrast, Alan Fram of the Associated Press, which published its own assessment, wrote:
Some conservatives are beginning to question whether Rep. Bob Livingston should become the next House speaker, even as many other Republicans are rallying behind him following his admission of marital infidelity . . . Livingston's problem is intensified by the narrow GOP margin in the next House: just 223‑211, plus one independent who usually votes with Democrats. If just six Republicans refuse to support him for speaker, he would lack the 218 votes needed to be elected—assuming the Democrats and independents vote against him.[2]
Next. . . . Part 3: Speaker-Designate Bob Livingston resigns
ENDNOTES
[1] During an exclusive interview, which was published on January 12, 2000, in The Hill, Livingston told journalists Albert Eisele, Robert Schlesinger, and Mary Lynn F. Jones: “About midnight that night [December 16], I got a call [from his district representative], saying that I had a problem at home, [about] a person I used to know. . . . I mean, look, there were ads taken out offering $1 million [by Hustler magazine for information about sexual misbehavior by members of Congress]. Who was responsible for those ads? I don’t know, but I sure can guess. I mean when James Carville months earlier says, ‘We’re declaring war,’ all I can say is war got pretty dirty. By the way, I surmise I’m a product of that ad.”
On September 19, 2000, Livingston appeared on Fox News’ The O’Reilly Factor, saying: “They put out an ad. . . . And I think the White House was directly involved in that. I personally believe that. Carville was involved in that. And it had its impact with respect to me.”
In short, Livingston—caught, exposed, and understandably bitter about it—was totally wrong. Neither Carville nor anyone from the White House had anything to do with our project, directly or indirectly—on or off the record.
[2] Alan Fram, Associated Press, “Gaps Appear in Livingston Support,” December 19, 1998.
Thank You Very Much Sir.
Sincerely,
Rodolphe Nogbou
It is a real blessing discovering your extensive involvements in some big crises in America. I am trying to understand more about New York City.
ARE YOU FAMILIAR WITH THE UNDERGROUND RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN THE NEW YORK CITY POLICE DEPARTMENT, ORGANIZED CRIME (MAFIA) FAMILIES, AND THE CITY ELITE (SUCH AS TRUMP, BLOOMBERG, ETC...)?
It's about how some people (elite) employ mafia families (with the knowledge of the police department) to organize attacks on human potential (including use of people in sorcery rituals).
Sincerely,
Rodolphe Nogbou
Email: rodnogbou@gmail.com