-Caveat Lector- From: <http://www.nytimes.com/2000/09/22/opinion/22STEW.html> September 22, 2000 No One Won the Whitewater Case By JAMES B. STEWART After six years and nearly $60 million of taxpayer money, the Whitewater investigation, for all practical purposes, is over. To the extent that they will face no criminal charges, Bill and Hillary Clinton have been exonerated. But what, for all the anguish, time and money, have we learned? The Whitewater investigation germinated in 1992, in a culture of mutual political destruction. During a heated campaign for the Democratic nomination, Bill Clinton had already suffered what his closest aides openly referred to as "two strikes": the draft and Gennifer Flowers controversies. When Whitewater burst into public view ó in a March 8, 1992, New York Times article by Jeff Gerth that remains a model of investigative reporting ó it was seen by the Clintons and their allies as the dreaded "third strike" from which there might be no recovery. The potential scandal had to be blunted at all costs, not because the Whitewater acts were crimes, but because they were embarrassing. The Clintons made a series of public statements that can most charitably be deemed "misleading." Mr. Clinton, of course, was elected, but the Whitewater record, replete with evasions and misstatements, provided ample fodder for those opposed to the president. After Vincent Foster, the White House counsel, committed suicide, and after Whitewater records were clumsily and suspiciously removed from his office, the rabid Clinton haters went into high gear. They piled their own falsehoods on top of the Clintons' evasions, none more preposterous than the notion that Mr. Foster was murdered, preferably by Hillary Clinton herself. By 1994, everyone was calling for the appointment of an independent counsel ó the Clintons in order to lay the Whitewater affair to rest and their opponents in order to destroy them. The truth was unlikely to emerge however. The Clintons, fearing embarrassment, continued to stonewall, while their opponents pounced on their recalcitrance as evidence of guilt. The independent counsel's mission was to get to the bottom of the morass. Kenneth Starr and his top deputies were not instinctive politicians, and they became caught up in a political war for which they were woefully unprepared and ill- suited. The White House and its allies relentlessly attacked the independent counsel for what they thought were both illegal and unprincipled tactics, like intimidating witnesses and leaking to the press. Mr. Starr has been vindicated in the courts in nearly every instance, and he and his allies were maligned to a degree that will someday be seen as grossly unfair. Nonetheless, that the Whitewater investigation cost what it did, took as long as it did and meandered so far afield from its original mission is preposterous. The investigation unfolded with an inexorable logic that made sense at every turn, yet lost all sight of the public purpose it was meant to serve. Mr. Starr's failure was not one of logic or law, but of simple common sense. >From very early on, it should have been apparent that a criminal case could never be made against the Clintons. Who would testify against them? The critical witnesses in the case were Mr. Clinton himself, his Whitewater partners, James and Susan McDougal, and David Hale, an Arkansas businessman. In 1994, early in the Whitewater investigation, Mr. Hale pleaded guilty to bank and mail fraud. Mr. McDougal, too, was convicted on 18 felony counts stemming from his operation of a corrupt Arkansas savings and loan. He died in prison while serving his Whitewater sentence. Mr. Clinton, we now know, cannot be relied on to tell the truth when his self-interest is at stake. Susan McDougal refused to answer prosecutors' questions, even in the face of imprisonment. Whatever the suspicions about the Clintons' actions, no prosecutor would take such witnesses before a jury. The investigation does not clear the Clintons in all respects. As far as the Whitewater matters themselves, the evidence goes a long way toward exonerating them. On the obstruction of justice issues ó lying under oath, concealing evidence, pressuring witnesses ó the evidence is stronger, but still far short of proof beyond a reasonable doubt, as Robert Ray, the latest independent counsel, concluded. We will probably never know the whole truth about these matters. That is a fact of life in many criminal investigations. The independent counsel law is already a casualty of Whitewater and its excesses. But as long as a culture of mutual political destruction reigns in Washington, the need for some independent resolution of charges against top officials, especially the president, will not go away. After all, we did get something for our nearly $60 million. The charges against the Clintons were credibly resolved. To me, the leitmotif of Whitewater is lies. Lies, large and small, begot more lies. Many of our politicians seem to believe that a moment of unguarded candor can destroy a political career. Yet I remain convinced that had the Clintons been forthright from the beginning, there never would have been a Whitewater scandal. James B. Stewart is the author of "Blood Sport: The President and His Adversaries." ================================================================= Kadosh, Kadosh, Kadosh, YHVH, TZEVAOT FROM THE DESK OF: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> *Mike Spitzer* <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ~~~~~~~~ <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> The Best Way To Destroy Enemies Is To Change Them To Friends Shalom, A Salaam Aleikum, and to all, A Good Day. ================================================================= <A HREF="http://www.ctrl.org/">www.ctrl.org</A> DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER ========== CTRL is a discussion & informational exchange list. Proselytizing propagandic screeds are unwelcomed. Substance—not soap-boxing—please! These are sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory'—with its many half-truths, mis- directions and outright frauds—is used politically by different groups with major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRLgives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply. Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector. ======================================================================== Archives Available at: http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html <A HREF="http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html">Archives of [EMAIL PROTECTED]</A> http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/ <A HREF="http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/">ctrl</A> ======================================================================== To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Om
