First Larry Klayman sued Hillary Clinton. Now he's suing his mom.
Everything you need to know about Larry Klayman can be gleaned from a press release he blast-faxed to the world two weeks ago. The heading read:
CLINTON ALLIES BEGIN SMEAR CAMPAIGN AGAINST JUDICIAL WATCH
Use "Friendly" Newsweek Reporter to Harm Memory of Grandmother of Larry Klayman
Likely Complicity of Clinton Private Investigators
The unhinged prose that followed responded to an item filed by Newsweek reporter Daniel Klaidman. Klayman did not dispute the fact that he is suing his mother, Shirley Feinberg. He claims his mom won't pay him back $50,000 he spent on private nurses for her mother, his grandmother, Yetta Goldberg, who died last August at 89. He did not want this suit to become public, but the Clintonites, he asserted, learned about it and leaked word to Newsweek. The final paragraph of his statement bears quoting in full:
Klaidman used this information, obviously dug up by private investigators of the Clintons to suggest that the Judicial Watch chairman will sue anyone, and so hurt Klayman by trampling on the memory of his grandmother. This is untrue, unfair, and outrageous! What is true is that Klayman will do what is right, no matter who is involved. Whether it means caring for his sick and dying grandmother who raised him, guaranteeing payment to her nurses, or taking action to make sure they are paid. Klayman will not shrink from his standards of ethics and morality. Unlike Klaidman, who wants to curry favor with Clinton administration friends such as [George] Stephanopoulos, Klayman looks to no one, other than God, for guidance and direction.
In fact, Newsweek did not hear of this lawsuit, which was concealed under the name of a collection agency that belongs to Klayman, from the White House. It found out from Klayman's brother, who volunteered the information. But the point is not just that this Klayman conspiracy is imaginary and far-fetched (Newsweek, which broke the Lewinsky scandal, is hardly "friendly" toward the White House). It is that, as evidenced by this and other paranoiac effusions, Klayman is off his rocker.
This became abundantly evident when I went to interview him at his Washington office this week. After attempting to ascertain whether I was a Clinton spy or worked for Salon magazine ("in our view, a front for the Clinton administration"), Klayman told me that "private investigator types" working for Clinton have been spotted "casing" his office. With darting eyes and barely repressed rage, he alleged that administration secret police keep files on him. He went on to tell me that Ron Brown was probably murdered because of what he knew about various administration scandals. Alleging the existence of forensic evidence of murder, he explained, "Everybody in that lab believed there was a round hole the size of a .45 caliber bullet." (In one TV interview, Klayman suggested the killer was "perhaps the president himself.") The Brown cover-up is the subject of one of the 18 lawsuits Klayman has filed against the administration. Another concerns the investigation into the death of Vince Foster, who Klayman thinks may also have been murdered.
In other words, Klayman is one of the fringe characters who has sprouted in the moist ground of the Clinton scandals as mushrooms do after a spring rain. But Klayman is not treated like a fringe figure. He has, by and large, achieved the mainstream credibility he craves. He is a frequent guest on such TV programs as Crossfire, Rivera Live, MSNBC's Internight, and The Charles Grodin Show (with whose twitchy host he seems to have a special affinity). Klayman is financially supported, praised, and frequently cited by the wider conservative movement. But he isn't just a nutter who gets right-wing foundation money and gets on television. He's a nutter with a law degree who takes advantage of the courts to harass his political opponents. How does he get away with it?
The press elevates Klayman for a couple of reasons. On television, there are more and more shows that take off from the Crossfire format, expecting guests to represent strongly contrary positions. If one thinks Ken Starr is out of control, the other, ideally, should argue that Bill Clinton knifes people and buries their bodies in the White House basement. If these guests scream and yell, so much the better. Barking, however, undermines the pretense of a rational debate. Klayman, who presents a coherent façade while making wild and unsubstantiated charges, is perfect. With print publications, there's a different problem. Fine profiles of Klayman have recently appeared in Newsweek and the Washington Post. But the conventions of newspaper journalism are such that an "objective" reporter cannot render his own opinion that the subject has a screw loose. Klayman is described in such terms as "controversial legal gadfly."