Clinton Scandals Return to Haunt Democrats
NewsMax.com Wires
Thursday, Aug. 1, 2002
WASHINGTON – While not exactly sent reeling, the continuing corporate confidence crisis has inflicted some political damage on the president and his party. The drumbeat of digs by Democrats over the president's relationship to Harken Energy and the vice president's stewardship over Halliburton, a company under investigation for its accounting practices, has hurt.
Whether the damage is superficial or permanent is yet to be determined. In the short-term, the administration was badly in need of a diversion.
The administration needed some event that pushed the Democrats off balance, knocking them down a peg or two from the moral high ground where they had established their base camp for the fall elections. Thanks to Bill and Hillary Clinton, they may have gotten one.
The Clintons have asked, through attorney David Kendall, for a reimbursement of the legal costs they incurred as a result of the different investigations conducted by the Office of the Independent Counsel, known collectively as "Whitewater."
This is a permissible request under the Independent Counsel statute. Congress intended that those who incurred legal expenses as a result OIC inquiries but were not the target of an inquiry be able to recover costs.
In the case of Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., all of her legal expenses may be refundable because she was not a target of the OIC investigations. For Bill Clinton, expenses unrelated to the Lewinsky affair, where the president admitted to obstruction of justice as part of his plea bargain and waived the right to reimbursement, may fall in the same category as his wife's.
Before the panel of three federal judges who oversee the OIC can rule whether to honor some or all of the request, the OIC and the Department of Justice will review the records and issue their opinions on whether it is warranted.
The request, however, thrusts the scandals back in the public consciousness at a time when the Bush administration should welcome the distraction.
Multimillionaires on the Dole
According to published reports, the outstanding legal bills total somewhere between $1.57 million and $6.5 million, real money even in Washington. The American people are, however, unlikely to be sympathetic. Documents filed with the Senate show the Clintons paid $1.3 million in legal fees last year, a healthy sum but a small part of the estimated $12 million the two earned in speaking fees and book advances alone.
Before any effort on their legal debts moves ahead, several issues need to be addressed, with any public debate on them likely causing political damage to the Democrats.
First, the question of whether they actually deserve reimbursement.
The statute provides for individuals to be reimbursed for expenses they incurred. The Clintons created a legal defense trust to offset their legal expenses. That fund raised close to $8 million, according to some estimates, and paid out most of it to lawyers and others associated with their defense.
Dick Morris: 'They've Never Given a Dime'
Dick Morris, the former Clinton political adviser who is now a critic, said last week that the former first couple: "Paid the lawyers only a million dollars and that all came out of their legal defense fund. They've never given a personal dime to any attorney that represented them."
This could be a problem.
As one attorney familiar with the workings of the OIC statute said: "When fees are paid out by a legal defense fund on behalf of those for whom the money was raised - $7 million or more in the case of the Clintons - then they are not supposed to be eligible for reimbursement. If the fund paid the bill, then it is the fund who is out the money, not the Clintons, on whose behalf the bills were paid."
Are the Clintons seeking reimbursement for expenses paid for by the fund? Probably not. But the American people will want to know for sure once the issue is raised, as it no doubt will be more than once. To be sure, they need to see the records.
Obstruction
There is also the issue of things the Clintons' lawyers might have done to drag out the process during the investigation.
The president admitted obstruction in the Lewinsky matter. It is not a reach to believe that either Clinton may have engaged in similar yet successful efforts in other matters under investigation.
Hillary Caught in a Lie
Consider that, beginning with the 1992 presidential campaign, Sen. Clinton said she did no work on the Whitewater real estate deal. When her billing records were finally discovered inside the White House in December of 1995, more than two years after the Department of Justice asked that they be produced, it was learned that she had spent 80 hours on the matter.
These billing records, which the government had asked be produced more than two years prior to their discovery, were not turned over until Jan. 5, 1996.
When they were turned over, several weeks after they were found, their physical condition was such that no chain of custody analysis could be performed on them, traces of prior possession being obscured by greasy fingerprints belong to Clinton attorney David Kendall.
Various parts of the different reports produced by the OIC indicate the Clinton and their attorneys were not forthcoming in a timely manner in other instances as well. Appendix A and Appendix D of the travel office report and pages 119 thru 129 of volume 1 of the Whitewater report being just a few places where such incidents are cited.
A careful reading of the reports, along with an analysis of the counter-charges filed against the OIC by the Clinton attorneys, may lead a reasonable person to conclude that the investigation was prolonged - raising the expense incurred by the Clintons - because of their conduct and that of their lawyers.
The American people will, no doubt, view the request for reimbursement with the same skepticism through which they viewed the Clinton administration denials during the investigation.
There is a way, however, to restore public confidence in a manner sufficient to honor the request if warranted.
Time for Accountability
The Clintons, through their attorney, should make all the billing records and the complete reimbursement petition public, possibly on the Internet through the Web site of the Democratic National Committee. That way, anyone from political opponents to reporters to John and Jane Q. Public can look them over and decide for themselves if the reimbursement is warranted.
The process is under seal until the three-judge panel issues a decision as to the validity of the request. While billing records are not covered by attorney-client privilege, there are issues of privacy and such that keep them from becoming public record.
They could be had through the Freedom of Information Act, but the documents would be subject to review before being released and might not be complete.
Additionally, attorney David Kendall could, in his fee petition, request that the records be kept under seal once the decision is reached. This would not, however, be in the best interests where public confidence is concerned.
Learning From Reagan's Openness
In a related precedent, President Ronald Reagan ordered Attorney General Edwin Meese III to waive all privilege during the Iran-contra investigation. Such openness was to his credit and the country's benefit.
Democrats would be wise to second such a move. They have made considerable political gains arguing that the public has a right to see the records of the energy policy task force led by Vice President Dick Cheney. Senate plurality leader Tom Daschle, D-S.D., and other party leaders have resolutely called for President Bush to waive privilege and allow the Securities and Exchange Commission to make their file on Harken Energy public. The administration's refusal to do either has, in some instances, made it look as if it is hiding something.
An effort to keep the Clinton documents under wraps, while paying out potentially as much as $11 million to Bill and Hillary Clinton, would be equally suspicious, causing the Democrats to once again shoulder the burden of Clinton's misdeeds.
Comment by Peter Roff, UPI national political analyst.
Copyright 2002 by United Press International.
All rights reserved.
Read more on this subject in related Hot Topics:
Clinton Scandals
DNC
Sen. Hillary Clinton
