Ross Perot on Late Edition with Wolf Blitzer

Russian Envoys Meet With Milosevic; The Pope Appeals for Peaceful Solution in Kosovo; Judiciary Committee Decides Whether to Launch Formal Impeachment Process

Aired October 4, 1998 - 12:00 a.m. ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.

EXCERPT
----------------

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BLITZER: After nearly two years out of the political spotlight, a candidate in the past two presidential elections is now back. Ross Perot made news this past week by adding his name to the list of those calling for President Clinton's resignation. And joining me now from Dallas is Reform Party founder and former presidential candidate, Ross Perot. Mr. Perot, welcome to LATE EDITION. Thank you for joining us.

A week ago in Atlanta, let me read to you what you said. You suggested that President Clinton has "a defective brain." You went on to say, "Have there been any other world leaders that have had the same mental defects? Yes. They were so driven for power they'd do anything to keep it. Hitler had it. Stalin had it. Saddam Hussein has it. Castro's got it, just to name a few." The suggestion that you're making, comparing the president of the United States to those other men, some are saying, how could Ross Perot be so reckless in making that kind of comparison.

ROSS PEROT, FORMER PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: All right. Just review the words you spoke. I said, as far as his lust for power is concerned, he's exactly like they are. He doesn't care about this country. He obviously doesn't care about his family. He obviously doesn't care about just taking the morals and ethics of our children and young people to the floor. He wants to stay in power. And his big concern is his legacy.

BLITZER: Hitler, Hitler...

PEROT: And I think we ought to look at what his legacy will be in a few minutes, and we'll come back to that.

BLITZER: But Hitler and Stalin, I think you could argue Saddam Hussein, were mass murderers. Is President Clinton a mass murderer?

PEROT: No. Only you would bring that up. I said lust for power Saturday night. I said lust for power again today. I did not spread that. Now it's absolutely incorrect for you or anybody else in the media to expand on what I said. Can you agree with me there?

BLITZER: Well...

PEROT: Do you or not? Do you agree with me or not?

BLITZER: I'm only reporting what you actually said...

PEROT: I said lust for power. Is that correct? Yes or no?

BLITZER: But then you made the comparison to these other men.

PEROT: And then I said, in his lust for power. Now come on, Wolf, you know what I said. You're trying to expand on it. That won't work. I didn't even want to get involved in this. I had to get involved in it because the president wouldn't go away. I had hoped that he would realize that he had done so much damage he should resign. We've got international economic problems that could devastate millions of people in this country and around the world. We've got military instability around the world from Korea to you- name-it. And I can sum up my position with these words. I think it's plain the president should resign and spare the country the agony of impeachment and removal proceedings. I think the country should be spared a lot of agony if he would go.

Now all of these are Clinton's words -- excuse me, Wolf. Let me finish one statement. This is what Clinton said in 1974, about Nixon. Now when it's his turn, he doesn't want to do it.

BLITZER: But if there are all these international crises around the world right now, an international economic crisis, the case could be made and some have made it against you that you're undermining the commander-in-chief at this time, and what you're doing in effect is giving aid and comfort to the enemy and you're being unpatriotic.

PEROT: Nice try. You sound like a White House spokesman. Maybe you're on Carville's team. But, the president undermined himself. He destroyed himself. I never said a word. I would rather not say a word but, but, having said that, we cannot allow a man who has no self-control, who is so erratic mentally that he's having a fling with Monica in the White House and at the same time trying to get a vote from a congressman over the phone about the bombing that you were talking about earlier.

The president is commander-in-chief. He can send your sons and daughters off to die. He can press the nuclear button. You wouldn't let a man with his pattern of behavior do either, and I think he has lost the right to do that. And the quicker he goes the better. And the quicker we have a person in there who has the maturity, the judgment, the sense of responsibility, the better off we'll be.

BLITZER: All right, the other allegation you made against the president is that he may be on drug use, may have used cocaine and that could explain his relationship with Monica Lewinsky. But on what basis do you make those kinds of accusations?

PEROT: Well, you like to take my speeches out of context. And the whole context, I said his brain didn't work. And I said, let's assume it all works normally. Then sometime, he's taken something that causes him to behave erratically, but that...

BLITZER: But that's your assumption, right?

PEROT: May I finish?

BLITZER: That's your assumption.

PEROT: May I finish?

BLITZER: Yes. Go ahead.

PEROT: That's all it ever was. No, no there's more than an assumption here. He's admitted to former drug use in the past. Would you agree with me there?

BLITZER: He admitted to not inhaling marijuana, but he didn't admit to cocaine.

PEROT: Well, but that's Clinton. That's Clinton. That's Clinton. Now then, all over Arkansas they're just covered up with stories about his problems with cocaine and what have you in the Mena (ph) airport and you name it. I have no way of knowing the details on that, but if every part of his brain is working correctly then he wouldn't be doing these out-of-control things that just devastate his family, lower the morality of the country, cause the American people to lose faith in their government. These are terrible things to be doing.

Now a guy could get terribly drunk and maybe go a little crazy, but having studied drug use a lot because I was chairman of a war on drugs in Texas, spent a lot of time with people who use cocaine, his behavior parallels a person's behavior when they're up on cocaine. But it becomes very erratic. If he didn't use it..Now, let me finish once. I said, all he has to do is expose his medical records. He's very secretive about his medical records. Lay them on the table and see if there's any background of drug use, any background of having been in drug treatment, and then go under oath and say to the American people, "I have never used drugs since I've been in public life."

BLITZER: But, but, the point...

PEROT: And do it in an environment where he's under oath and he'll have to do 20 years time.

BLITZER: But the point is that you don't have any hard evidence that he's used cocaine, these are just your suppositions based on...

PEROT: I'm saying, in talking to a lot of doctors and having had a lot of experience and a lot of knowledge about how the human brain works. If you assume that his brain all works fine...well, we know it doesn't from time to time. Then something disrupts the circuits. They're called neurons. Something disrupts it and it doesn't work for a while. Now that would have to be something like drug use.

BLITZER: But, but, Mr. Perot, with all due respect, how would you feel if reporters started reporting rumors about you without getting hard facts?

PEROT: Well, excuse me, excuse me. You all do that all the time. But now let's assume they reported this rumor. I'd say, "Guys, here's my medical records, I've never used drugs in my life." And they'd say, "Would you go under oath in federal court with the understanding that if you lied about it you'd do 20 years?" I'd say, "Sure, let's go." Now, let's go back to what I said in context. That's exactly what I proposed in my speech, which has not been brought up on this program today.

Let's get back to the real issues. Here we've got a guy who has seriously damaged the standards, morals, and the ethics of our young people. In the junior high school, the high school, and the college level. So, he's worried about his legacy. He should be. This is his legacy. He taught our children to lie. He has taught our children not to be faithful to their families and friends. He has taught our nation that a man does not have to be faithful to his wife and family. He has taught the young people at the high school and college level that anything goes in their sexual behavior. That's his legacy and that is no legacy.

BLITZER: All right, Mr. Perot, we have to take a quick break. We have a lot more to talk about with Ross Perot, plus your phone calls for Mr. Perot. Stay with us.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BLITZER: Welcome back to this 90 minute LATE EDITION. We're continuing our conversation with Ross Perot in Dallas. We will also be taking your phone calls. In fact we have a phone call right now from Aventura, Florida. Please go ahead with your question for Ross Perot.

CALLER: Mr. Perot, I'm a veteran of eight months of combat in Belgium. I listen to you and I think you've abdicated your American citizenship. Nobody in my command would have ever on that battlefield insulted the commander in chief of our country, who was solely elected by the people -- you ran against him and they don't want any part of you.

BLITZER: All right, Mr. Perot, tough words from a former vet.

PEROT: If he is a former vet and I doubt if he is because I'm covered up with calls from veterans and probably the veterans will be the ones most active out in the field getting all these petitions signed asking the president to resign.

They're taught duty, honor, country. Here's the Air Force manual on the Corp values and the Corp values are integrity first, service before self and excellence is all we do.

West Point -- duty, honor, country. The Naval Academy anthem. One of the phrases is, faith, courage, service, truth and honor over honor all.

The veterans are disgusted with this person. I'm covered up with mail from people in the armed forces who say we don't have a voice. Thank you for speaking out. We're going to be loyal, we'll do our job, but we'd like to have a commander in chief that we could respect that has our same high standards.

BLITZER: All right, let's take another caller from Anaheim, California. Please go ahead with your question.

CALLER: Hello Mr. Perot, I believe and appreciate the money and the time you personally put into making this country a better place and I know you're not in it for the money.

Thank you sir -- it's really a pleasure to have people like you in our country who make this a great, great place. Will you run for office in the year 2000 sir?

PEROT: I don't want to run for office. I never wanted to run for office. I said the other day, if he'll resign, I will promise not to run for office. Now that ought to be exciting for both parties, because they considered me a nuisance. The thing I would like to see, though, and we have to have now, when you get to the point where Boy Scouts in Utah don't want their Eagle Scout badge because the president's name is on the certificate -- let's look at why.

A Boy Scout is taught to be honest, trustworthy and loyal. He pledges to do his duty to God and his country.

Clinton is not honest, trustworthy or loyal even to his close friends and his family. He doesn't do his duty to God and his country.

The Boy Scouts pledge to be morally straight. Clinton is anything but that and certainly this is the kind of thing that drives me and I am determined to see that our children aren't lowered down to the level that the president is setting now and has been setting for years and that we get him out of there and get a good person in who is a good example for our children.

BLITZER: All right, last week Senator Bob Doyle was on this program, Mr. Perot and I asked him, is Ross Perot still a factor in American politics and Mr. Doyle's response was very terse -- he simply said, I don't believe so.

PEROT: Well, everybody's entitled to his opinion. That's one mans opinion. He's now signed up as a foreign lobbyist. He's doing a lot of things, I think, are just inexcusable for a person who's been in his job and he's advertising products and what have you.

I'd like to have one person -- and we do have a lot of them, that do leave public office and don't go out and try to market themselves. That's one mans opinion, but that's not the nations opinion believe me.

Now what we're busy doing while all this clutter goes on is we're getting people all over the country involved in signing petitions to ask the president to resign. We want this to be a very dignified process. We're asking people to hit the streets.

I'm asking people in these various communities across the country such as the veterans first, the parents, the senior citizens, the small business owners, all these different people to ban together, collect petitions all over the country. In the petition, ask the president to resign for the good of the country and for the good of our children.

You need to get the names, addresses and the telephone numbers or the zip codes and if you can the telephone number so that if anybody wants to validate accuracy can, and if have any questions about this survey, you just go into the Internet to www.perot.org and interestingly enough over 2.5 million came into site in the first 24 hours after we announced it and all this myth that you're being told that you don't care, we're going to let them see that you do care, then we're going to gather these petitions across the country and we'll have a convey of trucks going from the West Coast, from the South, from the Midwest, all coming together in Washington in early December and we'll let them know that you do care about duty, honor, country and morality.

BLITZER: And at that time Mr. Perot, we'll invite you to come back on LATE EDITION. Hopefully you will come back, but we're all out of time for this segment right now. Thank you so much for joining us and thank you. And when we come back, the case for impeachment.

With independent counsel Ken Starr's main evidence now public, how strong is his case. Former Bush attorney general Dick Thornburgh and former Clinton White House special counsel Lanny Davis help us weigh the evidence. Stay with us.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

GREG CRAIG, ATTORNEY: In its zeal to prop up its allegations against the president, the office of the independent counsel, in its referral to the House of Representatives, intentionally omitted direct, exculpatory testimony.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BLITZER: White House special counsel Gregory Craig on why the latest release of Ken Starr's documents by Congress may help the president. Welcome back to this 90 minute LATE EDITION. And joining me now, former Clinton White House special counsel Lanny Davis, and former Bush attorney general Dick Thornburgh. Gentlemen, thanks for joining us again on LATE EDITION.

Alright, you just heard Greg Craig suggest that what all these documents show is that Ken Starr, the allegation is that Ken Starr deliberately omitted what's called exculpatory material, information that could help the president rebut the allegations of abuse of power and obstruction of justice.

Dick Thornburgh, was this document dump on Friday a plus or a minus for the president?

RICHARD THORNBURGH, FORMER BUSH ATTORNEY GENERAL: Oh, I think the most recent document dump is kind of a neutral. There's not much new added by it. There's some tantalizing tidbits in there, but I think that the counsel from the White House is overreaching a bit when he complains about leaving things out. It's all in the record now.

BLITZER: Lanny Davis.

LANNY DAVIS, FORMER WHITE HOUSE COUNSEL: Well, look, there's no question that the curious fact that came out in this latest disclosure is that Mr. Starr's prosecutors had Monica Lewinsky before a grand jury for hours, and hours, and hours and hours. It only took, after the questioning was finished, for a grand juror to say to Ms. Lewinsky do you have anything else you want to say.

And she said yes, the president never asked me to lie, and he never got me a job in order to keep me silent. It's very strange that they never asked her that question. The answer to that riddle appears to be they knew that she would answer in a way that wouldn't help their case. Their failure to include that in the report clearly showed a one-sidedness to their presentation.

BLITZER: The other point the White House is making is that Linda Tripp, Monica Lewinsky's former friend at the Pentagon, in all those secretly recorded phone conversations that she made, was egging on Monica Lewinsky on, and manipulating her to do things that could expand this investigation that Ken Starr was then engaged in.

Let me read one excerpt of what Tripp said in one of those conversations. She knew she was being recorded, since she was doing the recording, quote:

"The ultimate thing is if this is your last hurrah," she told Monica Lewinsky, "you'd better something out of it that, you know, that you can stick with, because this is a good stepping stone. It's not many times that you're going to have someone of that stature," referring to Vernon Jordan, the president's close friend, " opening a door for you."

THORNBURGH: Wolf, when I was a prosecutor, I always used to tell juries in my summation that I, if I had my own way, I wanted to have witnesses who were priests, ministers and rabbis. That would be a persuasive case. Unfortunately, you have to take your case as you find it and your witnesses as you find it.

The key thing here is the evidence, not the witness. And I think the overwhelming thrust of this evidence shows that the president testified falsely under oath. In fact, the White House doesn't seem to make any kind of defense to that. They say, as much as say, yes, he committed perjury but that's not an impeachable offense.

BLITZER: The president isn't saying he committed perjury. He's saying he may have made misleading statements, but that does not amount to perjury in the sense of perjury.

DAVIS: Well, Governor Thornburgh is absolutely correct. The focus of the issue has to be on what the president's conduct was and whether it's an impeachable offense. And that's really where the debate has to move to. And I think there is a way to short-circuit a prolongation of this, a replay of partisan politics.

And that may well be if there are certain stipulated facts, much like a summary judgment, then presenting to the Judiciary Committee, based upon those stipulated facts for the purpose of this argument, is there an impeachable offense.

BLITZER: Alright.

DAVIS: And I think the judgment should be there is not.

BLITZER: Alright, we're going to continue that line of thinking, see if it's got any future up in the House Judiciary Committee. But we have to take a quick break. For our international viewers, WORLD NEWS is next.

Coming up for our North American audience, more with Lanny Davis and Dick Thornburgh, plus a check of the hour's top headlines with Gene Randall, our LATE EDITION roundtable, and Bruce Morton all ahead. Stay with us.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BLITZER: You're looking at a live picture of the Washington Monument. Today is the last day that the public can visit the monument for two months as construction crews continue a two year renovation.

Welcome back to LATE EDITION.

We'll get back to our discussion of impeachment with Dick Thornburgh and Lanny Davis in a moment. But first, let's check in with Gene Randall in Atlanta for a look at the hour's top stories.

(NEWSBREAK)

BLITZER: We now continue our discussion about the legal issues facing President Clinton, with our two guests, former White House Special Counsel Lanny Davis and former Bush Attorney General Dick Thornburgh.

There is a story in "The New York Times" today, Lanny Davis, suggesting that the all of the -- you know information, the original source of the information that Ken Starr got, was not necessarily directly from Linda Tripp, but from a series of lawyers associated with Lucianne Goldberg, Linda Tripp's literary agent.

And as we take a look at all of the evidence, so far that is on this desk released, the videotapes, the initial report, five pages -- thousands of pages documents. What's the difference? None of that could have made any difference in the president did have this affair with Monica Lewinsky and did decide to mislead, even you and other close aides about it.

What if so-called right wing conspiracy out there. They didn't convince Monica Lewinsky or the president to get -- to engage in sex.

DAVIS: This is a very important question. The key question is the president's conduct, and whether it is impeachable offense. And I agree, nothing else impacts on focusing on his conduct.

But there is a secondary question, which is the process that got us there. And if that process was tainted. If it was, for example, using illegal methods, if it involved entrapment in the political arena, that should impact at least mitigating or putting in context how the president got into the position to be under oath to have to deal with a sexual relationship. So it is relevant but I agree the key issue is his conduct.

THORNBURGH: Let's look at this, on the record, as lawyers are accustomed to saying. The fact of the matter is, the president is represented by very good counsel. All people who have testified have good lawyers. They have shown no reluctance to go to court when they feel they are being wronged. And the fact of the matter is that every one of these issues that has been raised in a court has resulted in Judge Starr prevailing.

BLITZER: Although we are learning today that the Judge Norma Holloway Johnson who is the presiding judge in Ken Starr's grand jury, has asked for what's called a...

THORNBURG: Special master...

BLITZER: A special master, to investigate these alleged leaks from Starr's office to the news media.

THORNBURGH: The leak matter will run its course, but every case that has reached a judgment has resulted in Judge Starr prevailing.

Furthermore, under the Independent Counsel Statute, the attorney general, who is subordinate to the president, has every right to discharge an independent counsel. If there is any impropriety in terms of the conduct of the investigation.

So that certainly you are going to find little nitpicks in procedure, and some of those are blown way out of proportion in any investigation. But I would suggest that the record indicates that Judge Starr's actions have been perfectly proper. And have been upheld in every court, by every judge that has been obliged to address them.

BLITZER: A week ago, Lanny Davis, there was talk that there was an imminent settlement involving the Paula Jones' lawsuit against the president with the president's private attorney, Bob Bennett.

Since then we have learned that the million dollars demanded by Paula Jones and her attorneys -- the Clinton legal team came up initially with $500,000 and now they're willing to go up to $700,000. Does it look to you like there is going to be a settlement in that lawsuit at this point?

DAVIS: I certainly believe if the gap is two or $300,000 after all we have gone through that that gap can be bridged and should be bridged, I think that...

BLITZER: Won't it be admission of guilt on parts of the president?

DAVIS: I have settled many, many cases where I thought my client was right, but for economic or other reasons it was worth settling a case --absolutely not. But I do think it is worth, for the president to make this effort -- for the Ms. Jones and her attorneys to make the effort.

Putting that case behind us is part of the closure process that the American people want, which I think they would get, with this and impeachment process coming to close.

BLITZER: But it wouldn't have impact at all, Mr. Thornburgh, if -- if -- they want to go forward with the perjury allegation if this was settled, he still testified under oath in a certain way. And even if they do settle this case it has no impact on the actual charges, being leveled against the president.

THORNBURGH: No, I think it is important to remember that for all the talk including former president, Ford's suggestion about some kind of plea bargain here, that that's is not going to solve all the president's problems.

He has a pending potential contempt citation from Judge Susan Webber Wright in the Paula Jones' case for testifying falsely. He has potential criminal charges, which could be brought certainly after he leaves office, although it is by no means clear whether they can be brought against him in office. And the clock is ticking on Janet Reno's investigation into whether or not an independent counsel has to be appointed to investigate alleged campaign financing wrongdoing.

So, while the impeachment procedure is grinding on, and that is the major focus, the president and the administration have substantial other troubles they may have to face.

BLITZER: We are out of time this segment. I want all of you go home continue reading all of these books, a lot of homework all of us are going to have to engage in.

Dick Thornburgh, Lanny Davis, always a pleasure.

THORNBURGH: I have seen bigger records in a garden variety antitrust case, so that's not bad.

BLITZER: But the printing is really small. I need new glasses.

Thank you very much.

When we come back, we'll go round the table, with our roundtable, Susan Page, Tucker Carlson, Steve Roberts. Stay with us.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BLITZER: Joining me now, our LATE EDITION roundtable, Susan Page, White House bureau chief for USA Today -- that's Steve Roberts, columnist for The New York Daily News, and Tucker Carlson, political writer for The Weekly Standard. Apologies to Susan Page -- can we get a shot of Susan Page so everybody see Susan? I think everybody knows who Susan Page is.

All right. Ross Perot this past week, returned, and we saw him on this program today, does this make an impact? Is he helpful to the president's cause or does he hurt the president's cause?

STEVE ROBERTS, CNN COMMENTATOR: I don't think hurts president because I don't think anybody takes him seriously anymore. You know, when he calls the president mentally defective this is -- lends a whole new dimension to idea of the pot calling the kettle black. I mean, I just don't think he has any credibility left. But, you know, we are at this point in this story where someone says something shrill and outrageous and he gets his 15 minutes on television. But, I think Ross Perot is history.

BLITZER: All right.

TUCKER CARLSON, CNN POLITICAL ANALYST: Oh, I don't know. I think Ross Perot is getting saner by the day.

(LAUGHTER)

Clearly he's had treatment, actually this could be a -- you know, Ross Perot, we mock him and rightly, but people do listen to him. He does have followers, he has a great deal of money and this notion that there could be some sort of convoy to Washington where 10,000 people deliver petitions to the White House, that could be problem.

SUSAN PAGE, CNN COMMENTATOR: I think there is more impact from another big gun we heard -- big gun from the past that we heard from today, Gerald Ford, who weighed in with an op-ed piece and said that impeachment was too much for the particular crime that's been committed here and there ought to be some kind of rebuke instead. I mean that's -- he's lending his voice to this, I think that has more impact than what Ross Perot had to say.

BLITZER: The other person who weighed in is Larry Flynt and Hustler magazine. Is this a serious -- are a lot of members of Congress going to be pretty nervous about this $1 million offer?

ROBERTS: I don't think so. I think Larry Flynt -- but you know, I defend the right of the press to cover private lives. Because I think in the end, the public deserves to know Bill Clinton is having this kind of relationship. It says something about his recklessness and his arrogance and his lack of discipline. These are important questions to be answered. But, there is a line here. I'm not quite sure where it is, but some things are over the line.

PAGE: A million dollars is over the line.

ROBERTS: And Henry -- reporting about Henry Hyde's affair 30 years ago was over the line. This sort of fishing expedition without any connection to the current standards, or current issues, I think is way, way over the line.

CARLSON: But this does say about something, I mean, here you have James Carville coming out for Clinton, you have People for the American Way running ads on his behalf, you have Larry Flynt, the world's preeminent pornographer, this is team Clinton. This is who is defending the president? And I think says something about...

ROBERTS: Oh, that's not fair.

CARLSON: Oh, Sure it is.

ROBERTS: That's like saying that Ross Perot is, you know, stands for the Republican critics of Bill Clinton. That is not fair, Tucker. I mean, they are both way outside bounds.

BLITZER: All right, Senator Trent Lott, the Senate majority leader, was on This Week earlier today, and he suggested that some in White House are saying to him, it may be necessary to go forward with another government shutdown for political purposes. Let's listen to what Senator Lott said this morning.