If the Furor Subsides, Will There Be a Case?
By Sara Fritz, CQ Staff Writer
You hear it repeated everywhere: People saying they are not surprised
that President Clinton may have had a sexual relationship with a
21-year-old White House intern, but they are horrified that he could be
lying about it.
Likewise, Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr insists he chose to
investigate the intern case not because he wanted to embarrass Clinton with
allegations of sexual misconduct, but because he suspected the president is
guilty of perjury.
You might conclude from these comments that lying -- not sex -- is the
central issue in the scandal that currently threatens to engulf the Clinton
presidency. But if Starr, the media and the public were primarily worried
about Clinton's truthfulness, why have they waited until now to express
their qualms about the president's behavior? Starr's four-year probe
previously has yielded far more serious allegations of lying or obstruction
of justice by the president and the first lady that failed to either stir
public outrage or cause the independent counsel to bring charges.
In Starr's nearly forgotten investigation of the Arkansas land deal
known as Whitewater, Clinton's former investment partner, James McDougal,
told a grand jury the president lied under oath when testifying in a
criminal trial. In the disputed testimony, Clinton swore that he was not
present at a mid-1980s meeting at which Whitewater conspirators hatched a
plot to defraud the federal government. McDougal claims Clinton attended
the meeting. But the news that McDougal had called the president a liar --
just as Monica Lewinsky apparently has done -- did not cause even the
slightest ripple in public opinion polls.
Nor did Starr charge Clinton with perjury based on McDougal's
testimony, and the reason bears heavily on the current case. Even though
the independent counsel's office was firmly convinced at the time that
Clinton lied under oath in the Whitewater trial, a perjury case against the
president would have relied almost entirely on the credibility of McDougal
and his co-conspirator, David Hale. Both men would have been poor
prosecution witnesses against the president. Both were admitted felons, and
McDougal had previously told a contradictory story. This is why Starr has
been seeking corroboration from McDougal's ex-wife, Susan, who went to jail
rather than cooperate. Legal scholars say Lewinsky's secretly taped
assertion that she has "lied all my life" would undermine her credibility
as a prosecution witness.
Then there was the case of the Rose law firm billing records, which
mysteriously showed up on a table in the White House months after the
president's advisers failed to produce the documents in response to a
subpoena from Starr. These billing records revealed that Hillary Rodham
Clinton previously understated her role as a private attorney for
McDougal's savings and loan. Discovery of the records prompted Starr to
launch an investigation into whether Mrs. Clinton tried to cover up the
nature of her legal work for McDougal by concealing the documents. He even
summoned Mrs. Clinton to testify before a grand jury.
But no one was ever charged with obstruction of justice in connection
with the unexplained disappearance and rediscovery of the billing records,
and the public seemed unruffled by this apparent case of skulduggery at the
highest levels.
Nor should we forget the obstruction-of-justice case that Starr has
tried to build involving former Justice Department official Webster
Hubbell. Last year, investigators discovered that some of Clinton's closest
friends, including Washington lawyer Vernon Jordan, had arranged a variety
of lucrative jobs for Hubbell after he came under investigation by the
independent counsel several years earlier. Starr suspected the deals were
intended to buy Hubbell's silence.
Yet no one has been charged in that case, either. Here again, the
problem that prevented Starr from bringing obstruction-of-justice charges
has a parallel in the Lewinsky controversy. Although Starr was able to
trace the arrangements for Hubbell's income to Jordan and other Clinton
confidantes, he has not been able to prove that anyone helping Hubbell
explicitly demanded his silence in exchange for financial assistance. Such
deals tend to be implied, not explicit. Even if Lewinsky will testify that
Jordan tried to buy her off with a job, a corroborating witness may be hard
to find.
It is curious that none of these earlier allegations of lying or
obstruction of justice in criminal matters stirred as much hysteria as the
suggestion Clinton lied in a civil suit about his sexual activities. It is
easy to see why the public might deceive itself into thinking it is more
offended by lying than adultery. But it is harder to understand how Starr,
an expert lawyer, could anticipate building a case in the Lewinsky matter
when he has failed to do so in these other circumstances.
As any lawyer knows, a string of unproven cover-up charges do not
constitute a pattern of obstruction. If the shock of the sex scandal wanes,
will Starr or Congress have the determination to pursue such a
hard-to-prove case?
© 1998 Congressional Quarterly Inc. All rights reserved.
|