Starr bolstered as his support quadruples and Clinton crumbles. Imagine what will happen when the public learns about the other 95% of Clinton's crimes. Enjoy!
August 31, 1998
Starr's Mission--II
Further reflection and soundings in the legal community
suggest an answer to the puzzle raised here last week: why anyone in
Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr's office would dream of separating the
Lewinsky affair from the rest of the mess under his jurisdiction, especially
given how the unifying theme is obstruction of justice. To wit, impeaching a
President is one thing, indicting the possible criminals around him quite
another.
Mr. Starr's legal mandate covers criminal violations
including "any obstruction of the due administration
of justice, or any material false testimony or
statement in violation of federal criminal law."
Before the Lewinsky revelations started serious talk
of impeachment, he had convicted 14 criminals,
including the former Governor of Arkansas and a
former Justice Department associate attorney
general; and he'd also sparked a more general
cleanup of Arkansas corruption being successfully
pursued by other prosecutors. This was before he
took formal leave from his law firm, an action that
does not suggest plans to dump the matter into
Congress's lap and go home.
Mr. Starr's original mandate covered possible violations of federal criminal
law involving Madison Guaranty S&L and the Whitewater Development
Co. Subsequently, the three-judge Special Division of the U.S. Court of
Appeals and the Attorney General expanded this writ to crimes connected
to the Travel Office firings, the apparent misuse of FBI files affair, the death
of Vincent Foster and, finally, the Lewinsky matter.
In each of these cases, the issue of obstruction
of justice rears its ugly head. This is the
Ockham's Razor explanation for the $700,000
in fees to Webster Hubbell, the long, hard silence of Susan McDougal, the
firing of Resolution Trust Corp. investigator Jean Lewis, the disposition of
gifts to Monica Lewinsky and the lawyerly evasions the Clintons employed
in their sworn statements. Even in the Foster matter, Mr. Starr's report of a
suicide at Fort Marcy Park explicitly noted that investigations of the
subsequent handling of materials in his office "have not been concluded."
Obstruction, of course, was count one in the bill of impeachment against
Richard Nixon approved by the Judiciary Committee in the Watergate
scandal. In the legal arena, Mr. Nixon was named as an "unindicted
co-conspirator," while a large number of his subordinates and associations
were indicted, ultimately leading to many convictions and jail terms. Nixon
tough guy Chuck Colson, who went on to redeem himself with continuing
service in the prison ministry, went to jail for mishandling one FBI file.
Former bar bouncer Craig Livingstone mishandled hundreds of personnel
records while in the Clinton White House, but no indictments have been
brought in the Filegate matter. The conventional wisdom, still following the
White House spin, is that everything in Mr. Starr's ongoing writ has come
up a "dry hole," and that he seized on the Lewinsky affair the way the FBI
grabbed Al Capone's income tax violations. In fact, Mr. Starr's investigation
has been slowed by White House stonewalling--the litigation of jurisdiction
issues through the courts, the constant appeals, the endless and often
frivolous privilege claims, the distracting attacks on the independent counsel,
etc. Though the courts finally ruled against all privileges, back problems
further delayed grand jury testimony from aide Bruce Lindsey, who is to
Mr. Clinton what the ultimately jailed Bob Haldeman was to Mr. Nixon.
Mr. Lindsey made his first lengthy appearance before grand jury Friday.
We are now fast upon Labor Day in an election year. This is relevant,
because Justice Department guidelines preclude the indictment of political
figures during an election. Unlike the still-garrulous Lawrence Walsh, who
indicted Caspar Weinberger four days before the 1992 Presidential
election, Mr. Starr has pledged to follow this guideline. And there remains
an honest dispute about whether a President can be indicted. Indisputably, a
President's aides can be, but, as a practical matter, probably not until
November at the earliest. Meanwhile, the Justice Department has had no
experience on which to base guidelines when an independent counsel should
forward evidence of impeachable offenses to the House, which Mr. Starr's
mandate also requires him to do.
Looming over all of this is the huge legal/political issue of whether
Presidential immunity to indictment applies by extension to a First Lady.
After all, Hillary Clinton's subpoenaed billing records turned up in a White
House family study, and there is reason to suspect she was deeply involved
in both the Travel Office and FBI Files matters. Also, relevant litigation even
now proceeds. The independent counsel is appealing a judge's decision to
throw out his tax fraud case against Webster Hubbell. Susan McDougal,
currently on trial on unrelated charges in California, also faces a Starr
obstruction case in Arkansas. In short, Mr. Starr has a huge agenda of
decisions involving Mr. Clinton's associates, an agenda related to
impeachment issues but governed by different constraints and timetables.
The Lewinsky revelations badly damaged the President's political support;
the President's confession and bitter attack vaulted Mr. Starr's poll ratings
out of the basement and into the 40%-plus range. But it has vastly
complicated Mr. Starr's timetable. With the President now having admitted
he lied, evidence of a presidentially centered coverup is palpable. Mr. Starr
has been under enormous pressure to send something up fast. But
Congress, faced with the real possibility of an impeachment inquiry, is
starting to sober up. No one on the Hill is talking about quick action on a
Starr report.
As longtime critics of the Clinton morality and administration of justice, we
are as anxious as anyone to see the details of Mr. Starr's investigation. But
we warned against splitting the Lewinsky investigation from other possible
obstructions precisely because a full accounting is needed. The timing
dilemma is clear, and we suggest that Mr. Starr might use his new-found
public credibility to explain that he is best situated to find a sound
resolution--including applying the Justice guidelines uniformly, and holding
the impeachment report until he decides what criminal cases may be
justified.
interactive.wsj.com |
