Presidential aide and ex-journalist Sid Blumenthal could conceivably be in legal as well as professional peril if it can be proved that he played a role in circulating stories about the lives of Rep. Henry Hyde and others. THE SCRAPBOOK has learned that, in a deposition for his libel lawsuit against Matt Drudge, Blumenthal denied under oath talking to journalists about Hyde and other public officials.
It is thus hardly surprising that Blumenthal released a statement late last Thursday specifying he "was not the source or in any way involved with this story on Henry Hyde." Salon magazine's notorious scoop the day before had revealed the adulterous affair during the late 1960s of Rep. Hyde, chairman of the House Judiciary Committee. Hyde is presiding over the hearings on whether to impeach Blumenthal's boss, Bill Clinton.
Like all carefully lawyered statements emanating from the Clinton White House, Blumenthal's denial elicits the question, What does he mean when he uses the word this? Does he mean that he was the source for, or in some other way involved with, other stories on Henry Hyde?
In his statement, Blumenthal goes on to assert that he didn't "urge or encourage any reporter to investigate the private life of any member of Congress." Again, as Clinton made clear in his grand-jury discourse on the English language ("It depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is," the president said at one point), words bear close scrutiny. So what precisely does Blumenthal mean by the words urge and encourage and investigate?
Perhaps Sid's role in the White House -- besides feeding the first lady's fantasies of a vast right-wing conspiracy out to get her husband -- is merely to play matchmaker between friendly reporters and friendly private investigators like Terry Lenzner. That wouldn't involve any urging or encouraging; nor would the reporter himself need do any investigating, if the president's private eyes had already done all the snooping. And, while we're on the subject, THE SCRAPBOOK supposes that Sid may be using the word private in some special Clintonian way. Was Hyde's affair really private, for instance? Matrimony, as the justice of the peace always points out, is a public institution. And Hyde's liaison involved not just him but the woman herself, and was discovered by her husband.
Interesting questions, these. Important ones, too. The White House has promised to fire anyone with fingerprints on the Hyde story. The FBI, at the urging of House Republicans, is considering an investigation of whether dirt is being dredged up to intimidate the members of Congress who may soon sit in judgment of the president.
Salon has denied any White House involvement in its scoop, but that's hardly the end of the story. The San Francisco Examiner reported on Saturday that Salon rushed its story into print because it learned that two "political operatives" were "leaking details of Hyde's affair." According to Salon managing editor David Weir (who was interviewed by the Examiner's Matt Beer), one of the operatives was Terry Lenzner, a private eye "hired in the past by the White House to check out Clinton opponents." So Salon confirms that Terry Lenzner was spreading stories about Henry Hyde. A Lenzner spokesman denies it to the Examiner.
Looks like the FBI has its work cut out for it.