The Lessons of Whitewater

TheFreak · Mar 26, 2002

http://www.nytimes.com/2002/03/24/opinion/24SUN1.html

March 24, 2002

The Lessons of Whitewater

The Clinton era ended for real last week, with neither a bang nor a whimper, but only a 2,090-page report. Robert Ray, the last of three independent counsels on the Whitewater investigation, released his findings, closing an inquiry that came to dominate much of Bill Clinton's eight years in office. Mr. Clinton's defenders will argue that the entire investigation was a waste of more than $64 million in taxpayers' money. But we hope that Whitewater will be a permanent reminder to people who seek elective office that the best defense against any inquiry is to volunteer the truth.

Mr. Ray concluded that there was insufficient evidence to convict either the former president or his wife of any crimes relating to the failed Whitewater real estate development or to the web of shady dealings that sprang up around it. The wording amounted to a less-than-wholehearted acquittal. The Clintons' lawyer reasonably pointed out that Mr. Ray could also have said that there was insufficient evidence to convict them of having "trapped fur-bearing mammals out of season or sold nuclear secrets to Liechtenstein." If an eight-year investigation fails to find any substantial evidence of criminal wrongdoing by the Clintons, the only fair response is to declare them cleared.

Questions about the Clintons, however, will probably continue to be raised as long as there are historians to study the American presidency. Missing files, destroyed documents and unanswered queries still float around the history of the former president and first lady. To accept their innocence is to marvel at what a mess they helped make for no good reason.

The Whitewater issue was first raised by The New York Times during the 1992 presidential campaign. The issue involved serious questions, and the investigation that followed led to plea agreements or convictions for more than a dozen people, most of them with political or business ties to the Clintons. This page urged the Clintons to cooperate so often that it became the editorial version of shouting oneself hoarse. But their refusal to provide full and frank answers on matters like Mrs. Clinton's mysteriously mobile billing records turned the case into a cottage industry of White House obfuscation. In time, the inquiry grew to embrace charges of tampering with regulators and other questionable behavior. Eventually it came across the matter of Monica Lewinsky and taught us much more about the Clintons than we ever wanted or needed to know.

Some of their former associates have said the Clintons deliberately stonewalled because they believed that no matter how much information they provided, more would always be demanded. They also complained that Republican conservatives were out to get them. There were definitely many people who hated the Clintons. It is also true that the independent counsel's office, particularly under Kenneth Starr, showed a stupendous lack of concern for the need to keep the investigation under control and conclude it in a timely fashion.

For their part, the investigators argued that they could have moved faster if the White House had been cooperative. If the Clintons' strategy of denials and evasions was in fact a reaction to the behavior of their enemies, they gave the right wing exactly what it wanted: a presidency discredited by the chief executive's inability to tell the truth.

The nation may never again see a president with Bill Clinton's natural political talents, his instinctive grasp of policy and his breadth of understanding of governmental issues. He was capable of being an extraordinary leader. The fact that he turned out to be so much less is a tragedy, and the tragedy's first act was about Whitewater.

Desert Scar · Mar 26, 2002

What is the lesson? That innocent versus guilty is now seen as guilty versus proven guilty. That sure, if you just give all your information to your benevolent prosecutor everything will be alright The prosecutors lose their cases and publicly trying to claim they win them, it doesn't get more un-American than that.

Also, another sad lesson is stonewalling works. Unless you have something like an incriminating tape (Nixon) or biologically traceable stain, probably like 1/100 cases, the stonewalling works. Every president I can remember has done so except maybe Carter.

mrpaige · Mar 26, 2002

One of the things that I've wondered about is if at least some Republicans were as aggressive in going after the Clintons as a sort of retribution for the way Democrats in the past went after folks like Ronald Reagan, Robert Bork, Ed Meese, Clarence Thomas, etc.

It just seems to go back and forth and back and forth. Democrats go after a Republican administration then Republicans act the same way when a Democrat is in office then the Democrats return the favor when the Republican is back in office. And whoever is being "attacked" is always talking about how horrible the other side is for resorting to such tactics only to turn around in do the same things when they are in the opposition.

haven · Mar 26, 2002

mrpaige:

I think it's "acceptable" to go after people on matters that directly affect national policy.

So, it would be acceptable to go after Clinton on donations, Bork, Reagan, etc...

...but not acceptable to go after Thomas (or not on the grounds that they did), Clinton on the sex stuff, etc.

mrpaige · Mar 26, 2002

I'm having a hard time figuring out how getting someone's video rental records (like they did with Bork) is going after him on matters that affect policy.

And there are situations like October Surprise where the Congress went after Reagan and Bush for something that they could never find any evidence to support. Yet they continued nonetheless.

IVFL · Mar 27, 2002

Coudnt that 65 million have been spent on something more worth while? I mean they spent all that money to say. We dont have sufficent evidence to convict. pretty lame,

i just wish politicians would relize they work for us and not the other way around, i think there life and ours would be much better

haven · Mar 27, 2002

mrpaige:

Bork wasn't confirmed because he fired the special prosecutor against Nixon. They may have investiaged other thigns... but ultimately, that's what it boiled down to.

mrpaige · Mar 27, 2002

But the investigation was far more inclusive than that. They got his video rental records (leading to a law now that makes those records private) and gathered all sorts of personal information in a larger effort to discredit him in whatever way possible.

Are you saying that if the reason they don't want the guy is an issue dealing with national policy then it's okay to investigate anything and everything and use that against them?

That's the way it works. A Democrat doesn't want Bork on the Supreme Court for national policy reasons, so they find anything and everything they can to stop him. A Republican wants to politically discredit President Clinton, so he finds anything and everything to discredit him even if those things are personal issues. The ultimate goal is always to politically harm the person, and it's always because of policy issues.

Again, I ask, what do video rental records have to do with someone's fitness to serve on the Supreme Court? (And, for that matter, what did the replacement candidate's having smoked pot in his youth have to do with policy issues? Judge Ginsberg was also forced to withdraw. Anthony Kennedy was the third candidate offered for that seat).

Forums

The Lessons of Whitewater

TheFreak Member

Desert Scar Member

mrpaige Member

haven Member

mrpaige Member

IVFL Member

haven Member

mrpaige Member

Share This Page

About ClutchFans

Rockets Content

Support ClutchFans!