Even the NYT likes the WSJ editorial on Clinton as Mafiosi Message 4720882, today's NYT editorial on the Obstructor-in-Chief:
June 6, 1998
The President as Defense Lawyer
The Supreme Court made a disappointing call this week in rejecting
independent counsel Kenneth Starr's request for immediate high court
review of the Clinton Administration's expansive and dilatory privilege claims.
Bypassing the traditional appellate process is not a step to be taken lightly. But
Mr. Starr was right about the serious nature of his inquiry and the nation's
strong interest in a prompt resolution.
It is fair to say that Mr. Starr moved too slowly in the earlier part of his
investigation. But he seems to be trying hard now to bring matters to a
conclusion. An uncooperative White House keeps getting in the way. Now, so
has the Supreme Court. But at least the justices advised the lower appellate
court to "proceed expeditiously," which it did yesterday, scheduling oral
arguments for the end of June.
Almost lost in all the legal maneuvering over executive privilege, attorney-client
privilege and the Administration's invention of a new Secret Service privilege is
the odd definition of Presidential leadership that gave rise to the Lewinsky
investigation in the first place.
From the beginning, President Clinton has responded to the swirling questions
about possible criminal conduct -- including lying under oath, tampering with
witnesses and suborning perjury -- as if he were a typical suspect rather than
the nation's most important political leader. His approach to inquiries about his
contacts with Monica Lewinsky, or his financial dealings in Whitewater, for
that matter, has been to emphasize the personal rights that allow him to resist
the authorities. He has opted for litigating every issue rather than clearing them
up, and has savaged the prosecutor as if he did not head the department that
sought Mr. Starr's appointment. Such behavior is surely within Mr. Clinton's
legal rights as a citizen, but it is not conduct that fits any useful definition of
Presidential leadership or any reasonable plan for crafting an admirable
political legacy.
Compare Mr. Clinton's behavior with the statesmanlike response of President
Jimmy Carter in 1979, when he was the subject of a criminal investigation
involving bank loans and his peanut warehouse business. Paul Curran, the
special counsel who conducted that inquiry, wrote in The Wall Street Journal
that he was able to wrap up his work in just seven months, thanks in large
measure to Mr. Carter's full cooperation.
One of the hardest choices now facing Mr. Starr is whether to compel the
reluctant Mr. Clinton to testify under oath. But it should not come down to
that. Other than Ms. Lewinsky, no one is in a better position to help resolve
what really happened than Mr. Clinton. It should not take a subpoena to get
him to step forward as a teller of truth and as a national leader ready to shift
the country to new concerns.
nytimes.com |
