Ray Won't Discuss Secret Clinton Evidence

Former independent counsel-turned-Senate candidate Robert Ray refuses to discuss still-secret scandal evidence against ex-President Bill Clinton, contending instead that it's time to "move on" from the investigation that led to the first impeachment of an elected president in U.S. history.

In a bizarre exchange Sunday with WABC Radio's Steve Malzberg, Ray all but ignored the potentially explosive question about heretofore unreported allegations against Clinton, preferring instead to keep the focus on his bid to replace Democratic Senator Robert Torricelli.

MALZBERG: During the impeachment hearings we heard so much about the evidence in the Ford Building. Tom Delay said that if the Senators took the time to review it, 67 votes to convict might materialize out of thin air. We heard reports of some congressmen becoming sick looking at the so-called evidence. Christopher Shays said he looked at the evidence and he said that, not only did Bill Clinton rape Juanita Broaddrick once, he raped her twice.

Did the Office of Independent Counsel have serious and credible evidence of sexual and other misconduct by Bill Clinton that we still don't know about?

RAY: I think the message I would like to send to New Jersey voters across the state is that I am the independent counsel who brought that investigation to an end in a credible way with real results accomplished, first, to vindicate the principle that no person, including the former president of the United States, was above the law.

And second, to be able to show that our Constitution works and allowed an investigation of the highest official in our government to conclude appropriately.

I think it's important now to put that matter behind us. That investigation is now over.... I think it's time for all of us to move on..... While justice was brought to Bill Clinton and his administration, it would all do us well to focus on the future. (End of Excerpt)

On Jan. 19, 2001, the former independent counsel cut a no-prosecution plea deal with Clinton in exchange for an admission that he lied during his Paula Jones deposition and to the Monica Lewinsky grand jury.

After his Senate trial acquittal, the secret Clinton impeachment files were transferred to the National Archives, where they are scheduled to remain under seal till the year 2048.

Though details of the sealed allegations against Clinton are unknown, scattered reports in the immediate aftermath of his trial suggest they include:

• Complaints from several female Secret Service agents who said they had been sexually harassed by Clinton.

• An account by Newsweek investigative reporter Michael Isikoff that Clinton sexually assaulted a second woman inside the Oval Office (besides Kathleen Willey).

• An allegation by a second Clinton rape accuser (beside Juanita Broaddrick) who said she was bitten and bruised during a 1978 attack.

• Details from the investigation into a rumored attack on a heavily drugged 14-year-old Arkansas girl who allegedly woke up with then-Gov. Clinton on top of her.

Reaction to the secret impeachment evidence by House members who viewed it was startling. Rep. Mike Castle (R-Del.) was reportedly reduced to tears by what he saw. Rep. Matt Salmon (R-Az.) said he was nauseated by the evidence against the then-president.

Much of the information from the independent counsel's secret Clinton impeachment files is believed to have been gleaned by Texas private investigators Rick and Beverly Lambert, who worked for the Paula Jones legal team and shared their files with Ray's predecessor, Ken Starr.

In 1999 the Lamberts told NewsMax.com, "If you want a pattern of aggressive sexual behavior (by Clinton), we have that." (See: The Jane Doe Case Files - Part 1, Part 2, Part 3)

During Sunday's interview, the ex-independent counsel also defended himself against recent comments by lead House impeachment prosecutor David Schippers, who told NewsMax.com last week that he was "appalled" at the Ray Report's characterization of Kathleen Willey as an unreliable witness.

"Let me say, first, that I have a great amount of respect for David Schippers," Ray told Malzberg, before noting that the former House impeachment prosecutor was speaking as Willey's lawyer when he condemned his report. (See: Schippers: 'I Was Appalled at Ray Report')

"The difficulty for any federal prosecutor," Ray told Malzberg. "is that no matter what a witness tells you, that information must be corroborated. And to the extent a witness tells you information and that witness, his or herself, has provided information.... that turns out to be false, the credibility of that witness is irreparably damaged." (See: Kathleen Willey Blasts Independent Counsel's Lewinsky Report)

Listen to WABC Radio's Steve Malzberg on "The Buzz" with Richard Bey, weekdays 6 to 8 p.m. EST, and solo Sunday's 9 a.m. to 12 noon EST, 770 on the AM dial.

Star did a remarkably bad job. He had tons to work on and concentrated on the sex part. He refused to let the prosecutor prosecute the Foster death. I think Star took a dive from day one. One source said he was the Clinton choice from day one. All the noise masked the fact that he was in their pocket.

I saw lots of people do the right thing after lying for the Clintons. That also did it. One cannot lie first, then tell the truth, then expect to be believed.

Think anybody will listen to us old geezers screaming, "I told you so!" from our walkers?

Hey, with walkers, we'll have more room for protest signs! I certainly hope we will have an Old FReepers Home somewhere!

It All Makes Sense Now. Ray Running for Senate as a Democrat. Hmmmm. No wonder he didn't want to release any damaging information, he want's the Clinton votes... hmmmmm

Agreed, the evidence must have had some nexus, some relevance to the articles of impeachment. The question remains, what was the evidence? Any speculation? Could be an interesting thread........

You are sooooo correct. Brings to mind the phrase "You don't sh*t where you eat!"

You don't expose the x-president (and by the way, Clinton should now always be referred to as X-president, not ex-president), and all the members of both parties that are guilty as well, when you are planning on joining the gang.

The irony of all this is that Ray has managed to anger everyone... RATS are furious at any investigation, and GOP is furious that investigation was flawed, too timid.

Ray's a sure loser against a bare-knuckle fighter like Torricelli.

Thanks! "Smack Her" for me....

Nixon's "crimes" were done for Socio-Political reasons (however misguided!) His "Crimes" were committed to benefit his vision of the Nation's "best interests"--as he saw it. His Crimes were NOT committed for personal gain.

Clintons' crimes were ALL ABOUT their personal finances & personal legal protection---the Crimes were TOTALLY Venal! The "Clinton Crimes" TOTALLY SACRIFICED the "Public Good" to benefit the Clintons!

The contrasts are striking & profound!

"APPLES & ORANGES!!"

Doc

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.