Hillary to the Stand
Ken Starr promises he'll have the investigation of the
Clintons wrapped up before the Senate election next year.
By that time, the Independent Counsel will have delivered
a comprehensive report to the three-judge panel that
appointed him.
Should Hillary Clinton even bother looking for a
super-duper mortgage?
Will there be anything in the last Starr report that could
cost Mrs. Clinton votes?
At this point it is anyone's guess exactly what Starr will
do. He's been painfully unpredictable. And now there are
even reports he's ready to move on, and turn the rest of
the probe over to a lieutenant.
I'll stop the guessing. Starr believed he had caught Hillary
Clinton in a number of frauds, corruption counts and lies,
and was set to question her about discrepancies in
statements.
I have an internal document from the Starr investigation
labeled "Whitewater ? Potential Questions." It is a list of
matters that Starr's people wanted Hillary Clinton to
clarify under oath.
The questions appear below, verbatim:
Q. You and the President received a 50 percentinterest in
the Whitewater development, but you didn't invest nearly
as much as the McDougals did, did you? Why did Jim
McDougal give you this special deal? Do you think he
expected anything in return?
Q. You have said that you and your husband werepassive
investors in Whitewater. But you borrowedmoney to
purchase a model home on one of the Whitewater lots,
and you sought a power of attorney from Jim McDougal.
So you were more than a passive investor, weren't you?
Q. You and the President have said you lost nearly
$69,000, but Jim McDougal only recalls your having
invested around $13,000. How much money did you lose
on your Whitewater investment, and why won't you
release the documents that demonstrate this?
Q. If you lost nearly $69,000, how come you never
claimed a tax deduction for this loss?
On her representing Madison Guaranty bank before state
regulators:
Q. Wasn't it a conflict of interest for the Governor's wife
to be representing a private company before regulators
appointed by her husband?
Q. At the very least, weren't you insensitive to the ethical
code of your profession that says lawyers should avoid
even the appearance of impropriety?
On Hillary Clinton and Rose Law Firm, where she
worked, representing the Federal Deposit Insurance
Corp. in a suit against Madison's accountants.
Q. In 1989, your law firm represented the FDIC in a
lawsuit against Madison's former accountants, Frost &
Co., whose report Rose relied on in arguing on Madison's
behalf before state regulators. Now, whatever the
accountants did, they presumably were acting in cahoots
with Jim McDougal, who ran Madison.
Wasn't it a conflict of interest for Rose to be working in
1985 for Jim McDougal and in 1989 against the
accountants who were, undoubtedly, only doing Jim
McDougal's bidding? (On Dan Lasater.)
Not all questions are asked during a deposition, so some
of these might have been eliminated.
But all questions are asked during a Senatorial campaign,
including ones not in the these notes about personal lives
and finances.
John Crudele
Columnist, New York Post |
