Exposing Hypocrisy, Exhibiting Restraint
By Dan E. Moldea
Copyright © 1999, 2000 by Dan E. MoldeaExcerpt from Confessions of a Guerrilla Writer:
High noon had come for the President's enemies as the Senate trial got underway--the culmination of years of vicious allegations, wild conspiracy theories, and wholly partisan investigations, all of which had gone nowhere. Now reduced to criminalizing the President's personal life by alleging that he had lied about sex, the Clinton-haters were finally at center stage. The time had come for them to put up or shut up.
However, their earlier high confidence for the President's removal from office had dissipated considerably after the circumstances of Bob Livingston's resignation on December 19--and was further diminished by Flynt's continuing crusade to expose hypocrisy in the wake of his revelations about Bob Barr on January 11. In fact, other than the unmasking of Kenneth Starr as a partisan sexual witchhunter after the release of The Starr Report in September 1998 and the excellent legal work performed by the President's attorneys before and during the Senate trial, there was no single factor which had a greater impact on the impeachment process than Larry Flynt.
Had Flynt never emerged in this drama, Bob Livingston would have become Speaker of the House and the impeachment of the President would have shifted from the House to the Senate with a tremendous, even an overwhelming momentum. Instead, with Livingston's stunning resignation and the hypocrisy of the President's enemies clear and present to the American public, who kept the President's approval ratings high, the case limped to trial. . . .
Even though many of our supporters were disappointed that we didn't reveal all of the information we had collected, Flynt's finest hour in this project, other than his handling of the Livingston matter, came when he finally said, "That's it. No more."
In the end, we no longer had the stomach to go for the throat--unless the President was suddenly convicted and removed from office. . . .
Updates:
July 9, 1999
The White House had no role in the Flynt investigationAugust 13, 1999
Flynt chose not to pull the trigger about Gingrich-BisekApril 15, 2000
The investigator under investigationAugust 24, 2000
Flynt's reported upcoming revelations
Prior to the release of my 1998 book, A Washington Tragedy: How the Death of Vincent Foster Ignited a Political Firestorm--which detailed the official and unofficial investigations of Foster's suicide, and it was a suicide--I had never published anything about President Bill Clinton or his administration, even though I had enthusiastically voted for him in 1992 and 1996.
The Foster case was an eye-opening, life-altering experience for me. Through my research, I had collected clear evidence that a dishonest, money-grubbing cabal of Clinton-haters--who shared information, covered up each other's mistakes, fabricated evidence, and received their funding from the same source--had tried to portray Foster's suicide as a murder in a cynical effort to undermine the authority of the Clinton White House.
It was then that I realized what the President had been up against since his first inauguration in 1993: His political enemies were prepared to do anything--and use anything--to remove him from office. Consequently, when the Monica Lewinsky scandal erupted in January 1998, I decided to take sides and became an uninvited bit player in the war between the President and his enemies. Upon the release of my book in April, I publicly announced my support for the President, along with my criticism of the Office of the Independent Counsel (OIC), during radio and television appearances.
On May 19, 1998, during a speech at the Martin Luther King Library in downtown Washington, I alleged that the OIC routinely leaked non-public information on an off-the-record basis to a selected group of journalists, many of whom had become shills and stalking horses for Kenneth Starr and the OIC. I based these charges on my on-the-record conversations with members of the OIC staff during my research for the Foster book. Then, after the release of Steven Brill's "Pressgate" article in mid-June, evidence evolved, showing that some of these journalists had taken information from their own sources and actually fed it to the OIC, which later identified these reporters in court records as confidential informants.
Like me, these journalists had taken sides in the dispute; but, unlike me, they did not announce their biases, continuing instead to hide behind the First Amendment and to report for their news organizations under the false guise of objectivity.
In late July, in response to what many considered a cooperative effort between OIC prosecutors and this group of Washington reporters--who now needed the President's removal from office in order to justify their abuses and excesses--I revealed that I had tape recorded my on-the-record conversations with Starr's two deputies, Hickman Ewing and Jackie Bennett, upon whom I had based my original allegations about the OIC leaks.
On August 24, 1998--a week after the President's appearance before the OIC's federal grand jury--I attached the transcripts of these two conversations to an affidavit I filed with U.S. District Judge Norma Holloway Johnson, who had already ordered that Starr and the OIC be investigated for allegedly leaking secret information, illegally, to its stable of reporters. (See: Affidavit on OIC Leaks, as well as Judge Johnson's list of 24 allegedly illegal leaks.)
On November 23--as the OIC-leaks investigation proceeded and the President's impeachment appeared inevitable over what many considered the criminalization of his personal life--a representative of Larry Flynt approached me with an offer to head the investigation of hypocrisy among the President's critics: Those who had one standard of behavior for the President and another standard for themselves. Earlier, on October 4, Flynt had placed a full-page ad in the Washington Post, offering "up to a million dollars" to those who could provide proof of such hypocrisy.
Commenting on Flynt's ad, columnist Maureen Dowd of the New York Times wrote on October 7: "Larry Flynt is clearly looking for a deliciously high duplicity level. . . . We [need] a real shocker."
Even though I had never targeted the private life of any public figure before, I accepted the assignment and was responsible for, among other matters, the Flynt-backed investigation of U.S. House Speaker-designate Bob Livingston (R-Louisiana), who announced his resignation from Congress on December 19, the same day as the impeachment of the President. I also handled the probe of Representative Bob Barr (R-Georgia), the only other political figure Flynt chose to expose.
I voluntarily left the Flynt operation on January 22, 1999, in the midst of the Senate trial--after Senator Robert Byrd (D-West Virginia) announced earlier in the day that he planned to propose a resolution to dismiss all charges against the President. I assumed then that the President would be acquitted, which he was on February 12.
Two days after the President's acquittal, the New York Times reported: "The shock waves of the Livingston resignation spread far beyond the West Wing of the White House, and had a sobering effect on members of Congress of both parties who might have been contemplating calling for Mr. Clinton to step down in the aftermath of the impeachment vote.
"Fearful of the entire government unraveling, very few members of Congress joined a clamor for Mr. Clinton's resignation."
In my view, the Flynt project not only helped to rescue a great American President, but we also helped to foil a blatant attempt by a handful of right-wing extremists and corrupt journalists to overthrow the United States Government.
For this, I make no apology.
The following are four of the public statements I have issued about the Flynt project since returning to my chosen career as a grunt crime reporter and author.
The White House had no role in the Flynt investigation
On March 3, Representative Bob Barr (R-Georgia) sent a letter to the U.S. Department of Justice, which stated:
“This request for an investigation focuses on attacks, and threats of attacks on members of Congress before and during the [Senate impeachment] trial; specifically the House Managers. These attacks came from Larry Flynt, James Carville, Dan Moldea, and other individuals, and represent what appeared to be a deliberate and concentrated effort to impede the House of Representatives from fulfilling its duties under the United States Constitution to conduct matters relating to the impeachment of the President, first in the House of Representatives and then in the Senate.”
Barr’s letter followed similar complaints and requests to the Justice Department’s Criminal Division from the Landmark Legal Foundation, the Republican National Committee, and a variety of private citizens. They charged Flynt and me with blackmail, jury tampering, and obstructing the Senate trial, among other allegations.
Of course, no formal charges were, or could reasonably be, pressed against us.
On June 25, apparently because we weren't indicted, Representative Barr filed suit against the Executive Office of the President (EOP) and the U.S. Department of Justice in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. In this civil litigation, Barr, represented by Judicial Watch, alleged, among other things:
“Defendant EOP’s willful and intentional release of records and information concerning Plaintiff to persons such as Flynt, Carville, Moldea and/or others, without prior written consent or knowledge of Plaintiff, or any lawful justification violates . . . relevant provisions of the Privacy Act.”
I wish to state for the record--before the Barr case is dismissed and the other charges by Landmark and the RNC are long forgotten--that all of these allegations against Larry Flynt and me are false and misleading.
Also, I state the following:
* From the outset of my participation in the Flynt project, I recognized that--sooner or later, if I did a good job--I might be called to testify, somewhere or someplace. Consequently, I was extremely careful about whom I did and did not contact. Neither Flynt nor I even considered any communication with anyone at the White House. And the White House never attempted to contact us.
* Contrary to the wild claims by the anti-Clinton media--The Washington Times, The New York Post, The Wall Street Journal’s editorial page, and Fox-TV--as well as a variety of conservative congressmen and senators, televangelist Jerry Falwell, and beneficiaries of Richard Scaife’s money (like Landmark and Judicial Watch), I had no contact or communication with anyone at the White House or any of their outside operatives before, during, or after my participation in the Flynt investigation. My widely discussed--and grossly misrepresented--meeting with one of the President’s attorneys on June 26, 1998, is fully discussed in my sworn affidavit to Judge Norma Holloway Johnson about OIC leaks, which is posted on my web site.
* I have never met or spoken to James Carville, for whom I have great respect, even though he wrote favorably about me in his book, And the Horse He Rode In On (pp. 104-105). For that matter, I do not know and have never had a private conversation with either Terry Lenzner or Sidney Blumenthal, both of whom I also greatly respect. (Prior to the Flynt project, I met each of them once at separate book parties for other authors.) However, I do regret that--in order to provide cover for me while I continued my work in the midst of the firestorm after Representative Bob Livingston announced his resignation on December 19--Flynt was forced to remain coy about whether he had hired Lenzner. In fact, he had not. To be clear: Carville, Lenzner, and Blumenthal had no role in, or connection with, our investigation.
* If there were any other investigators involved in our project, other than me, I am unaware of them. And, even if there were, where is their work? I began and completed the investigations of Representative Livingston and Representative Barr, and those were the only two Flynt made public.
* I made no mistakes in my reporting during this project; no factual errors have been alleged by anyone. Also, to my knowledge, only one source received any money from Flynt. Many still believe that someone had sold out Representative Livingston for a financial reward. This is not true. My source on Livingston never asked me for anything and never received anything.
* The purpose of our project was to expose hypocrisy, knowing that it was in abundant supply among the President’s critics. We believed that a public official is entitled to a private life--unless he or she is judging other public officials by their private lives. If a politician was not taking the moral high ground against the President, we had no desire to interfere with his or her life.
* During the Senate trial of President Clinton, Flynt intentionally held his fire, because he did not want to inflame the situation more than it already was. One example was our investigation of Senator Tim Hutchinson, who has recently filed for divorce and whose brother, Asa, was a House manager. Had Flynt actually wanted to disrupt or obstruct the Senate trial, he could have easily publicized the material I had collected on Senator Hutchinson, among others. Once again, demonstrating good judgment, Flynt chose not to interfere with the process, which we respected.
* No member of our team ever approached any of our targets and posed any threats and/or ultimatums--or participated in any other activity that could even remotely be viewed as blackmail or extortion.
* However, three events did shake our resolve. First, Bonnie Livingston telephoned Flynt and asked him to end his investigation of her husband. Second, a close friend of mine who works for the RNC called and told me that a friend of hers, who believed he was on Flynt’s list, was prepared to commit suicide if publicly named. And, third, one of our sources had been careless with the materials I had provided, which were discovered by a target. We feared that the source might be harmed. In the end, as in the case of Senator Hutchinson, we pulled our punches on all three of these investigations.
* On January 22, Senator Robert Byrd of West Virginia, one of the President’s most vocal critics among the Democrats, announced that he planned to propose a resolution, asking for the dismissal of all charges against the President. That same day, after hearing about Senator Byrd’s announcement, I voluntarily left the Flynt project, confident that the President would be acquitted, which he was on February 12.
* After the acquittal, a series of irresponsible allegations against the President were made by his frustrated tormentors, prompting Flynt to publish The Flynt Report. Although some of the information I received during my investigation is contained in this report--specifically about Livingston and Barr--I did not participate in its preparation, and I was not given the opportunity to review its contents before publication.
* Nevertheless, Flynt and his staff did not violate any confidentiality agreements signed by our sources. Consequently, much of the meat of our project went unreported--and will, hopefully, never be revealed. In other words, out of conscience, Flynt chose not to unleash the arsenal he had in his possession. His critics, as well as the unnamed targets of our investigation, should be grateful that he is not the monster they believe him to be.
* In her critical review of The Flynt Report, Carol Lloyd of Salon wrote: "Dan Moldea defends Flynt, even though Flynt ignored his advice not to publish the report. [Moldea said,] 'Since the beginning of his project, Larry has demonstrated restraint and compassion. He demanded the highest standards of documentation and responsibility. I believe that he was effective. History will cite the resignation of Bob Livingston--as well as Larry's role in that decision--as the critical moment that diffused the entire impeachment process, and I'm proud to have been associated with him.'"
In other words, I have no regrets and make no apologies for what we did, except for whatever misunderstandings and/or miscommunications might have occurred during our investigation.
Bottomline, the President’s critics wanted a showdown on the issue of morality--and Larry Flynt gave them one. The evidence is clear that these critics, who have never shown the President any mercy or understanding, have two conflicting standards of private behavior for public officials: one for those they like and another for those they don’t like.
Bogus lawsuits, along with continued false and misleading allegations, cannot veil that fact.
Meantime, Bob Barr, a darling of the conservative right who refuses to relent from his endless vendetta against the President, continues to be viewed by his own critics as the poster boy for political hypocrisy, holding a Bible in one hand and a can of whipped cream in the other.
Flynt chose not to pull the trigger about Gingrich-Bisek
Now that former U.S. House Speaker Newt Gingrich has filed for divorce from his second wife, Marianne, and his alleged lover, Callista Bisek, has been identified, I feel free to state for the record that the Flynt investigation had uncovered information about this alleged relationship last November.
However, because Gingrich had already announced his resignation from the U.S. House earlier in the month, Flynt decided not to pursue this matter--which should provide further evidence of Flynt's refusal to obstruct the impeachment process.
In my status report to Flynt on December 7, 1998, I wrote: "[A source] alleged that Newt Gingrich had an affair with [Wisconsin Republican Representative Steve] Gunderson's secretary, who now works as a scheduler for the House Agriculture Committee." I identified the woman as Ms. Bisek, who was a $36,000-a-year assistant hearing clerk and scheduler for the committee.
Like Representative Barr, Gingrich, who had the audacity to describe President Clinton as "a misogynist" last September, embodies the breathtaking level of hypocrisy among the President's critics.
The investigator under investigation
On January 8, 1999, Mark Hosenball of Newsweek, with whom I had been acquainted for several years, called and asked me to confirm or deny that I was Flynt's mystery investigator. Other than confirming that I had handled the probes of Livingston and Flynt's other targets, reminding him about my sworn affidavit, and denying any White House involvement in our investigation, I refused to discuss the matter any further.
Hosenball's story, written with Andrew Murr--"Who's on Larry List?", which first identified me--ran in Newsweek's January 18 issue, released on January 11, the same day that Flynt unloaded our information about Bob Barr. Hosenball and Murr reported:
"Flynt had a tough time finding respectable journalists or gumshoes willing to take on the job. But at least one, Newsweek has learned, eagerly accepted: Dan Moldea. An investigative crime reporter and author of controversial books about pro football and the O.J. Simpson case, Moldea is a Clinton sympathizer. Last year he approached the president's private lawyers with a tantalizing story: in phone calls Moldea secretly recorded, two of Kenneth Starr's top deputies admitted that their office routinely briefed sympathetic reporters. Moldea later repeated the leak charge in a sworn statement to the judge overseeing the Starr probe. Moldea investigated the allegations against Livingston. He confirmed to Newsweek that he is continuing to investigate other Clinton critics. (Moldea and the president's attorneys deny there is any connection between the White House and Flynt.)" (Emphasis added)
However, the fact remained: I did not approach the President's attorneys; rather, they had approached me. Hosenball--who apparently was trying to dismiss me as some sort of sycophant--had specifically asked me about this and even had a copy of my sworn affidavit to Judge Johnson in which I explained my contacts with Williams & Connolly. Still, he got the story wrong, and his error would start another chain of events that would cause me a considerable amount of problems.
In short, this is what had happened: After I revealed my information about the OIC leaks during a speech in May 1998, Max Stier, one of the President's lawyers called me and asked for a meeting--which was a perfectly proper and legitimate request. I replied that I wanted a subpoena before cooperating and gave him my attorney's telephone number.
The following month, after Steven Brill's controversial "Pressgate" article was released, my attorney called me, saying that Stier had telephoned again and repeated his request for a meeting. When I said that I still wanted a subpoena, my attorney replied that the President's lawyers apparently did not have subpoena power and wanted to use my information to help them get it.
At that point, I agreed to the meeting--my first and only meeting with anyone from Williams & Connolly--which took place on June 26, 1998.
* * *
On January 13, 1999--the eve of the opening arguments in the Senate's impeachment trial against President Clinton--the Washington Post, Newsweek's parent company, published its own article by reporter Howard Kurtz, repeating that I was Flynt's investigator. Authorized by Flynt to comment in the wake of the erroneous Newsweek article, I had told Kurtz that, indeed, Flynt had several "big fish" on his plate. However, I added that some of them would not be made public.
"Some Republicans on Capitol Hill should be sending us flowers and thank-you cards," I told Kurtz. "They weren't going on TV talk shows shooting off their mouths [about Clinton], or going to the floor of Congress to seize the moral high ground. We've thrown them back in the river. We're not going to interfere with their lives."
Actually, I had meant these remarks to be conciliatory.
That same day, Bill Sammon of the Washington Times, another Clinton critic with whom I had also agreed to speak, published a front-page story, "Flynt sleuth dished dirt for White House," cynically using my role in the OIC leaks investigation as evidence of my--and, thereby, Flynt's--connection to the White House.
Sammon wrote in his lead paragraph: "The investigator who dug up dirt on Republican Reps. Bob Barr and Robert L. Livingston for pornographer Larry Flynt is a Clinton sympathizer who has supplied the president's attorneys with evidence against independent counsel Kenneth W. Starr."
Although Sammon portrayed this as a major expose, he failed to mention that I had detailed all of this and more in my sworn affidavit, which was posted for all to see at my web site. "I felt that Starr was essentially beating a confession out of the president with a political rubber hose," Sammon quoted me. "So I decided to throw myself on a hand grenade and reveal that I had these tapes [with Starr's two deputies]. . . . I just felt there was this very dangerous and sinister cooperation going on between the OIC and this stable of selected reporters, and I decided to take a stand against it."
Continuing his story, Sammon then quoted me about the Flynt investigation, saying, "I don't think there's anybody on our team who's getting much joy out of this. When you start hurting families, that's something that makes you pause and think about what's going on. But at the same time, I just haven't seen any mercy shown towards Clinton--I mean, none, zero."
However, using a version of the quote I had given to the Post about throwing non-hypocritical Republicans "back in the river," Sammon gave this statement a nefarious twist, writing that "[Moldea] made it clear he has uncovered salacious material on more Republicans whose identities will remain secret as long as they refrain from speaking out against Mr. Clinton."
Like the erroneous Newsweek article, Sammon's story immediately caused more problems. As spun by the Washington Times, I appeared to be threatening or even blackmailing unnamed members of Congress!
Using these inaccurate articles, the right-wing media immediately sprang into action with even more fiction:
* Syndicated columnist Tony Snow, the right-wing journalist who introduced Linda Tripp to Lucianne Goldberg, declared: "Larry Flynt, abetted by investigative reporter Dan Moldea, has attempted to blackmail Republicans into cutting Clinton free."
* Jamie Dettmer appeared equally delusional in his article for Insight, a magazine owned by the Washington Times. Dettmer wrote:
"Right and left the battle rages and good men act out of character, such as author-turned-hired-gun Dan Moldea, who has swapped his reputation for free thinking and independence to become Flynt's blackmailer in chief. . . . [M]oral equivalence or truth-seeking doesn't apparently doesn't matter to Moldea. The point again is media terrorism, scandal, intimidation--he makes no bones about it, saying publicly he'll hold back on outing Republicans who keep their mouths shut about the president. Isn't that a possible contempt-of-Congress offense and a potential breach of the federal statutes concerning obstruction of justice?"
* Matt Labash of the conservative Weekly Standard added:
"Flynt has repeatedly asserted that he hired a Washington private investigative firm chock full of ex-FBI and CIA operatives, but he declines to name it. Inquiring minds assumed he'd hired Terry Lenzner, the Clinton camp's usual private eye. But when I talked to Moldea, he denied knowing anything about this, adding, 'Personally, I don't believe there is a detective firm. If there is, where's their work? I don't see their work. Who did Barr? I did Barr. Who did Livingston? I did Livingston.' Moldea also denies any White House connection."
* On January 14, Mark Levin of the Scaife-funded Landmark Legal Foundation filed a formal complaint with the Criminal Division of the U.S. Department of Justice, charging Flynt and me with attempting "to influence and impede" the Senate's impeachment trial and adding:
"Messrs. Flynt and Moldea are not free to corruptly 'endeavor to influence' a congressional inquiry, such as an impeachment inquiry or an impeachment trial inquiry, by threatening, intimidating or coercing Republican members of Congress to keep silent about Mr. Clinton's conduct lest potentially embarrassing personal information involving the members and/or their families--which was either purchased by Mr. Flynt or otherwise gathered by Mr. Moldea--be made public."
* The following day, Republican National Committee chairman James Nicholson issued a press release, stating that he had "joined in the non-partisan Landmark Legal Foundation's demand for a criminal probe of pornographer Larry Flynt and his investigator, Dan Moldea, for the felony of Obstructing Congress. Besides assisting Flynt, Moldea assisted Clinton's defense team, Nicholson noted. . . 'The Flynt-Carville-Moldea tactics of intimidation and blackmail aren't just wrong, they're illegal, and our Attorney General ought to take off her blindfold and begin criminal prosecutions.'"
* Televangelist Jerry Falwell wrote a column on January 15 that was absolutely false, alleging:
"Dan Moldea, the lead investigator for Larry Flynt's ongoing quest to uncover sexual indiscretions of Republican congressional members, has now admitted he was hired by the law firm defending President Clinton. Moldea affirmed that the firm of Williams & Connolly initially contacted him to uncover evidence that Kenneth Starr, Whitewater independent counsel, had violated rules against leaking grand jury information to the press." (Emphasis added)
* Robert J. Caldwell, an editor for the San Diego Union-Tribune, published an article on January 17, repeating Falwell's false charge that I had actually worked for Williams & Connolly. Caldwell wrote:
"Moldea's former employment was with the Washington law firm of Williams and Connolly, whose lawyers are defending President Clinton in the impeachment proceedings. Moldea says his job at Williams and Connolly included investigating special prosecutor Ken Starr's investigation of the president." (Emphasis added)
* On January 18, the Wall Street Journal ran an editorial, entitled, "Abetting Blackmail," once again falsely charging that I had "worked for" Williams & Connolly, just as Falwell and Caldwell had claimed. Further, the Journal charged that Flynt and I were actively involved in a pattern of threats and blackmail against Congress. Joining the calls for the Criminal Division of the Department of Justice to investigate us, the Journal continued:
"[The Department of] Justice says the complaint is under review, and surely the criminal issue needs official study. Also, of course, there is the further issue of whether Mr. Moldea dug up all this dirt himself, or whether he is being aided and abetted by agents of the President. He has, as it happens, previously worked for the President's law firm, Williams & Connolly." (Emphasis added)
From the outset, I had realized that I was going to take a ton of grief for my role in the Flynt project and already decided to turn the other cheek to almost all of it. But, after seeing this editorial in the Wall Street Journal, I was mortified, as well as angry, and wrote a letter to Robert Bartley, the executive editor of the Journal's editorial page, as well as to Falwell and Caldwell, demanding retractions, threatening litigation, and insisting that I had never "worked for" or received any money from the President's lawyers or Williams & Connolly. I also added: "I have had no contact, directly or indirectly, with anyone from the White House or any of the President's attorneys or operatives during my investigation for Mr. Larry Flynt."
Responding to my demands in a second editorial two days later, Bartley and the Wall Street Journal, which referred to my earlier libel case against the New York Times, published perhaps the most disingenuous retraction in the history of journalism, writing:
"Dan E. Moldea, official mud-miner for scatology king Larry Flynt, says we have done him wrong. . . . What is in question is the phrase 'worked for.' If we wanted to play Clintonesque word games, we could ask, what is 'for' for? Does it not mean 'on behalf of' and isn't that what happened? But we desist, because many readers would indeed take 'worked for' to mean he got paid, which the public record does not currently support. So as requested, we hereby retract the word 'for.' Substitute the word 'with.' . . . Here we see in all their splendor the current point men in the Clinton defense movement. Is this how the Senate and the Democratic Party want to be represented, or will they separate themselves from the gutter inhabited by Mr. Flynt and Mr. Moldea?"
Having no desire for any more abuse from Bartley & company, I allowed this version of the Journal's retraction to stand without further comment. Also, refusing to be drawn into another legal battle, I ceased all further challenges to Falwell and Caldwell, who, unlike the Journal, still refused to retract--even though they could not support their charges.
On March 23, Jo Ann Farrington, the Deputy Chief of Criminal Division's Public Integrity Section, replied to a January 18 letter from one of our critics, asking that Flynt and I be prosecuted, saying: "I write in response to your January 18, 1999 letter requesting that the Department of Justice open an official investigation into whether Larry Flynt and Dan Moldea sought to obstruct the congressional impeachment inquiry and trial, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 1505. This matter is currently under review the Criminal Division."
No action has been--or could reasonably be--taken against us. Simply speaking, we had done nothing illegal.
Flynt's reported upcoming revelations
Several reporters have called me since Larry Flynt's August 16 appearance on KROQ radio in Los Angeles. According to published reports, Flynt hinted that he had accumulated evidence that Republican presidential candidate George W. Bush, an anti-choice advocate who promises a new morality in the White House, allegedly committed adultery with an unidentified woman, which resulted in an allegedly unwanted pregnancy that was ended by an alleged abortion.
In lieu of answering the same questions during future inquiries, I state the following:
1. I joined the Flynt project on November 23, 1998, for the specific purpose of exposing hypocrisy among the President's harshest critics in an effort to derail the growing movement to force the President from office. I handled the investigations of, among others, U.S. House Speaker-designate Bob Livingston--who announced his resignation from Congress on December 19, the day of the President's impeachment--and Representative Bob Barr. These were the only two investigations that Flynt made public. With my work completed, I voluntarily left Flynt's operation on January 22, 1999--after we were convinced that the President would survive his Senate trial.
2. In the wake of the President's acquittal, I played no role in the publication of The Flynt Report, which I believed was unnecessary after the successful completion of our mission. Instead, leaving the treacherous world of politics behind, I returned to my chosen career, investigating the Mafia.
3. I have not seen or spoken to Larry, whom I respect and consider a friend, since May 1999.
4. Upon request, I did meet in Washington on two separate occasions earlier this year with Flynt's new investigators, whom I will not identify without their permission. I freely provided my advice whenever they asked for it. However, I intentionally asked no questions about the specifics of their probes--and nothing was volunteered by them. In other words, I am in possession of no relevant inside information about their operation, including their reported investigation of George W. Bush.
5. Speaking from experience, I know that Flynt will not reveal the details of any investigation unless his evidence is ironclad. I made no mistakes during my earlier work for him; he will also insist on absolute proof from his new investigators before he goes public with anything.
Even though I am not involved in this new project, I still applaud Flynt's latest campaign to provide the relentless critics of President Clinton and Vice President Al Gore with yet another showdown on the issue of morality in American politics.