August 25, 1998
Starr's Mission
Few Americans in our history have suffered as much
vilification as Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr. No doubt this has been
hard to take, but we hope he and his prosecutors understand that the last
thing the country needs now is for them to flinch on the eve of fulfilling their
public duty.
We write this in the wake of stories that Mr. Starr plans to confine his
report to Congress to the matter of Monica Lewinsky. As hard as this is to
believe after Mr. Starr has worked so hard and so long, the stories appear
to be well sourced. They have the look of a trial balloon, perhaps reflecting
a debate among the Starr staff. Our view is that it would be a historic
mistake, for Mr. Starr and for the country, to send a report that can be spun
as merely an investigation of a sex case.
For better or worse, Mr. Starr has become the
political system's main agent for holding this
Presidency accountable. We can wish this weren't
so, and indeed these columns opposed the
independent counsel statute from the first. But over
the Clinton years, Attorney General Janet Reno has
burdened Mr. Starr's office with the duty of probing
scandal after scandal. Congress has also been only
too happy to pass the buck.
This means Mr. Starr's mandate has taken on a
burden that goes beyond the narrow legal demands
of sorting out crimes. He has done much of that,
winning 14 convictions. But the national expectation now is that Mr. Starr
will report what he knows about the pattern and practice of behavior during
the Clinton Presidency. Speaker Newt Gingrich said over the weekend that
this is what Congress expects, telling the Washington Post that "I think we
would be better served to know the whole story."
These include matters of the deepest political concern. In the dismissal and
punishment of travel office employees, Mr. Starr needs to assess the
contradictory explanations given by former White House aide David
Watkins and Hillary Rodham Clinton. In Filegate, he should tell us what he's
learned about how 800 FBI files of political opponents got into the hands of
former bar bouncer Craig Livingstone.
The trial-balloon stories suggest that Mr. Starr's legal excuse for not
addressing these matters may be that he is obliged only to report to
Congress evidence of "impeachable offenses." He would then save anything
else for a report to the appeals court that appointed him when his probe is
entirely done. With cases yet to try in Little Rock, that might not be until
2000.
But in any practical political sense, Mr. Starr gets just one public hearing.
What he presents the first time to Congress will be interpreted by the
press--and certainly be spun by the White House--as the only evidence of
consequence. Moreover, determining whether evidence is impeachable is
inherently a political judgment. We don't see why Mr. Starr should pre-edit
what evidence Congress should see regarding Mr. Clinton. And we don't
see why Congress shouldn't let the public see all of the evidence that isn't
hearsay as soon as possible. Mr. Gingrich hasn't been reassuring on this
point.
After all, Mr. Starr's probe of the Lewinsky case developed out of his
concern about a pattern of Presidential obstruction of justice. The hunt for a
job for Monica by the President's pals looked to Mr. Starr, and apparently
also to Ms. Reno, suspiciously like the $700,000 worth of job payments
provided for Clinton crony Webster Hubbell.
Because Mr. Hubbell has refused to cooperate, Mr. Starr may not have
enough proof of "intent" to bring indictments calling this hush money.
Likewise with Susan McDougal's refusal to talk about possible Presidential
perjury regarding his involvement in Whitewater. But Congress has a right
to make its own judgments whether these are impeachable. Evidence of
obstruction in the Lewinsky case may look very different in the context of a
pattern of such evidence across the Clinton years.
A fuller report would be valuable too if it were to exonerate the White
House on some of these matters. This is exactly what happened with the
exhaustive report Mr. Starr filed in October 1997 concerning the Vincent
Foster suicide. Filed with the appeals court, that 113-page product satisfied
all but the most fanatic conspiracy theorists.
Alone among the actors in this saga, Judge Starr has seemed admirably
immune to public opinion polls. His duty now is to provide a body of fact
and judgment complete enough for the political system to work its will to a
fair conclusion. This is the best way to both serve the country and vindicate
his probe.
interactive.wsj.com |
