July 18, 1995 - Part 1
July 18, 1995 - Part 1
(10:30:40) We need to ascertain whether the subsequent removal of documents in the search of the off-ice was politically motivated, improper or illegal or, as some media accounts have suggested, simply the sign of panic and poor judgment. It is in the best interest of the United States and the Clinton Presidency that these questions be answered. Despite President Clinton's initial promises to deal openly with Special Prosecutor Ken Starr and the Committee, there appears to have been some reluctance to turn over all of the documents related to the Whitewater investigation. The President's personal lawyers have, for example, released a number of documents removed from Mr. Foster's office that are relevant to the Whitewater investigation. But this has been openness in word only, not in deed. The President, exercising executive or attorney-client privilege, has refused to divulge the contents of those documents and instead provided records comprised mostly of total redactions concealing, perhaps, important evidence. For example, this first document appearing on the video screen, number 87, cryptically states in longhand "get out of Whitewater." But the rest of the information contained on the page has been deleted or redacted, A second document, number 182 and 183, appears to be an official memorandum, but most of this information has been redacted. Interestingly, the document states that "unlike the $1,000 honorarium mentioned above, however, it seems worthwhile to omit Whitewater even if doing so raises a few questions." Questions have been raised, and what we want are the answers. Yet another document, number 93, in the possession of the President's lawyers, has a handwritten reference to "Whitewater." But the remainder of the document has been left out or redacted. Similarly, I might add a final document. Number 229 states 'Whitewater," but it's followed by a whole section that is missing with an "options" agenda at the bottom of the document. There are many other documents with redactions that have been provided by President Clinton's lawyers and the White House. This is in the opinion of many hardly the kind of compliance that we hoped for and is certainly not the openness promised by the President. The existence of these documents is troubling and raises several questions that we hope to answer during the course of these hearings. First, why did Mr. Foster, the Deputy White House Counsel, an employee of the United States, have a substantial number of documents relating to the President's allegedly private business affairs? I am interested and concerned that an official paid by the taxpayers would be working on private matters, particularly private matters that would set up a conflict between the White House Counsel's Office and the Department of Justice. If, in fact, Mr. Fos- 16 ter was working on Whitewater for the President, a clear conflict of interest may have been present. Second, why would the President claim an executive privilege over documents transferred out of the White House to the President's private law firm? We know that at least six of the documents controlled by the President's private lawyers have been withheld because of the claim of executive privilege. Executive privilege, as the Supreme Court defined in the United States v, Nixon, is limited to Government documents controlled by the President. In other words, the President can invoke the executive privilege to withhold State documents, such as those relating to military se- crets or those involving internal deliberations of the Executive Branch, but not to conceal his own legal difficulties from a govern- mental investigation. Why, then, is a claim of executive privilege made for certain documents in the possession of the President's pri- vate lawyers? If those documents are related to the Office of the President, then they should remain in control of the United States. The President cannot allow Presidential documents to be transferred into private hands, even those of his personal lawyer. In the wake of another White House scandal, Watergate, Congress adopted a statute to prevent the President from disposing of documents or transferring documents from the control of the United States. The statute, known, as the Presidential Records Act, requires that any documentary materials created by the President or his staff remain under the ownership and control of the United States.