November 21, 1998
ANALYSIS
Clinton Still Not Exonerated on Non-Lewinsky
Matters
Related Articles
Ethics Guru to Starr Quits to Protest 'Improper' Role
Issue in Depth: The President Under Fire
Forum
Join a Discussion on The Impeachment Inquiry
By JILL ABRAMSON
ASHINGTON -- Both Kenneth Starr and the White House agreed Friday that the
independent counsel had "exonerated" Clinton on several matters that Starr had
long been investigating.
Exoneration is not, of course, the same as an ethical gold star, as one legal expert put
it, and the exact facts in each of the matters are different. The White House
complained that Starr was tardy in disclosing that he had found no wrongdoing on
these other matters and sought to define exoneration broadly, as covering everything
except the Monica Lewinsky saga.
Starr's testimony to the House Judiciary Committee did not go quite that far.
The independent counsel said Clinton had done nothing wrong in two matters, the
firing of White House travel office employees and the improper gathering of FBI files
of government officials in the White House.
On Whitewater, where it all started, Starr's testimony fell well short of clearing the
president of wrongdoing. Starr said that he had prepared a draft impeachment referral
on Whitewater late last year, but decided not to forward it to the Congress because he
was unsure whether the credibility of the witnesses against Clinton was sufficient to
make a strong case.
A prosecutor's failure to bring charges is not the same thing as granting a public
official a clean bill of ethical health, lawyers noted.
"There is a distinction between not being charged and being exonerated," said Irvin
Nathan, a Washington criminal defense lawyer who served in the Clinton Justice
Department. "A prosecutor doesn't give out gold medals for good conduct."
Nor are the investigations of the travel office and FBI file matters, colloquially known
as Travelgate and Filegate, closed. Starr said he is continuing to investigate both
matters and could pursue charges against lower-ranking officials.
Still, White House officials insisted Starr had cleared the president on all
non-Lewinsky matters. And they complained that he had been tardy in publicly
disclosing his findings.
"Conclusions of innocence, no matter how belated, are important," said Paul Begala,
one of Clinton's top political advisers.
On Whitewater, Starr said his prosecutors had difficulty "establishing the truth with a
sufficient degree of confidence."
"We drafted a report," he explained. "But we concluded that it would be inconsistent
with the statutory standard."
The independent counsel cited the cases where he was not still pursuing the president
as evidence of self-restraint. "We are proud not only of the cases we won, but also of
our decisions not to indict," Starr said, after citing the 14 criminal convictions he had
won on Whitewater, including those of former Justice Department official Webster
Hubbell and former Arkansas Gov. Jim Guy Tucker.
Democrats, however, insisted that Starr's testimony was tantamount to an admission
that he had nothing with which to tar the president on Whitewater. "It seems that Ken
Starr could not bring himself to say the words, but a fair reading of yesterday's
statement certainly strongly implies that we're done on Whitewater," said Jim Jordan,
a spokesman for the Democratic minority on the House Judiciary Committee. "Our
members, however, feel very strongly that Starr was ethically remiss in not
exonerating the president months earlier."
Starr said his attempts to investigate President Clinton and Hillary Rodham Clinton on
Whitewater had been stymied by the refusal of key witnesses, like Hubbell and Susan
McDougal, a former business partner of the Clintons, to cooperate. Starr indicted
Hubbell for a third time last week and plans to bring Mrs. McDougal to trial on
criminal contempt charges early next year.
Thus, while Starr has not uncovered sufficient evidence on Whitewater to bring
criminal charges against the Clintons or impeach the president, his office is still hoping
for a breakthrough. And while it remains unlikely that pivotal figures such as Hubbell
or Mrs. McDougal will ever supply one to Starr, his investigation continues.
But even Starr pn Friday acknowledged that he had exonerated the president on
several matters, though he was not specific. In a letter Friday to Samuel Dash, who
resigned Friday as Starr's ethics adviser, Starr wrote, "And it is important to note that
my status report on the overall investigation included exonerations for the president on
several issues."
As the recent indictment of Hubbell revealed, Mrs. Clinton is not completely out of
Starr's line of fire. The indictment refers to her obliquely as the "billing partner" on a
legal matter that is at the heart of the new case against Hubbell. Even though it is
thought unlikely that Starr will bring charges against Mrs. Clinton, he could embarrass
her by calling her as a witness in the Hubbell case.
By focusing on the active aspects of the Whitewater investigation during his
testimony, Nathan said, Starr was making "a half-hearted effort to show that there was
more than Monica." He, too, faulted the independent counsel for offering only a
belated exoneration of the president in the travel office and files matters.
"It is obvious his investigation concluded long ago that there was no basis to bring
charges on Filegate and Travelgate, " Nathan said. "It was his responsibility to report
that at the first opportunity."
Some conservatives, meanwhile, were bitterly disappointed over how Starr resolved
the travel office and FBI files issues. Larry Klayman, chairman of Judicial Watch, is
representing government officials who charge in a multi-million dollar class action
lawsuit that their files were unlawfully obtained by the White House. Klayman said
that Starr had done an "unthorough" investigation of the travel office and files matters.
He said that he has already deposed about 20 witnesses in his case and that only two
of them had been interviewed by Starr's office.
"He comes up with virtually nothing," Klayman said. "All he comes up with is a
stained dress. Most conservatives are very disappointed in Ken Starr."
Home | Site Index | Site Search | Forums | Archives |
Marketplace
Quick News | Page One Plus | International | National/N.Y.
| Business | Technology | Science | Sports | Weather |
Editorial | Op-Ed | Arts | Automobiles | Books | Diversions
| Job Market | Real Estate | Travel
Help/Feedback | Classifieds | Services | New York Today
Copyright 1998 The New York Times Company
|
