July 18, 1995 - Part 2
July 18, 1995 - Part 2
(11:20:40) We must get to the bottom of the Whitewater affair, and we must begin today. That's why these hearings are so important and why we can delay them no further To do otherwise would result in a failure by the United States Senate to carry out its responsibility in representing the American people It would mean more public distrust of government and create a nation of cynics and that, Mr. Chairman, would be the final tragedy to the chapter in story of Vince Foster. Thank You. The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Senator. Senator Moseley-Braun- 29 OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR CAROL MOSELEY-BRAUN Senator MOSELEY-BRAUN. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Chairman, Whitewater seems sometimes like a very large and complicated subject to most Americans, It's been referred to even this morning as a web of interconnected scandals, but, quite frankly, the focus of this phase of the Committee's work is -much more limited and much more simple. Was there improper conduct in the handling of the papers in Vincent Foster's office after his death? At the outset, I think it's worth noting that there is substantial evidence that the applicable law was complied with in this situation. No one has even alleged that there was any interference with the Park Police investigation that constituted a violation of law. It is worth noting that the Park Police, if they thought they needed any documents from the Foster office, which was not where he committed suicide, could have asked for a search warrant or sought a subpoena duces tecum. They never made any such requests. Of course, it is very unlikely that a judge would have ever issued a search warrant for Vince Foster's office because probable cause for a search would have been very difficult, if not impossible, to establish. The best evidence for that conclusion is found in the Park Police's own guidelines issued after this case. Those guidelines do not provide for sealing of any workplace where the death did not occur at that workplace. Even prior to the Foster case, the Park Police did not routinely request that the office of any person that committed suicide at another location be sealed. It is also worth keeping in mind that the Park Police never re- quested an opportunity to go through the Foster home. But, Mr. Chairman, if the law was not violated, or likely not violated, what about ethical standards? Vincent Foster was a lawyer, and as such the canons of ethics governing lawyers imposes a duty of confiden- tiality, a duty that did not die with Vince Foster. The attorney-cli- ent privilege is one of the foundations of our system of justice and justifiably so. Could any American consult an attorney if they thought that their communications with their lawyer were not pro- tected? This duty is a formidable one and there are special consider- ations that apply to a Presidential lawyer like Mr. Foster that make that duty even more formidable, I think the reference has been made that there was information regarding Supreme Court nominees in that office, Bernard Nussbaum and other Members of the White House Counsel's Office) therefore, had a duty to protect confidentiality in Mr. Foster's office. Seeking to protect the confidentiality of the files in his office was, therefore, at a minimum, not an obvious violation of applicable ethical standards. Those standards, in fact, called action to protect the confidentiality of the files in that office. Mr, Chairman I would point out that even the requests for information by this Committee, which the Chairman and the Ranking Member signed, has in it language that recognizes the existence of that confidentiality, the attorney-client privilege. It says: In connection with the above request, particularly with regards to documents in Vincent Foster's office at the time of his death we recognize that these materials are likely to include documents subject to claims Of privilege, and if any documents 30 are withheld based on the assertion of any privilege, please provide a log identifying the date, et cetera, and the basis for the privilege asserted. That has been done and complied with in this case. The White House has cooperated fully in that regard. That leaves, however, a third area of inquiry. Even if the handling of the documents in Vince Foster's office comported with all applicable legal and ethical standards, was there, nonetheless, an appearances issue, a question involving the penumbra of ethics rules that is worth considering? That, it seems to me, is where this Committee's inquiry will really be focused, once it is firmly established that there were no violations of law involved and no violation of applicable ethics rules. Mr. Chairman, in your statement, you said, and I quote, "the Senate Whitewater hearings will be fair, impartial and thorough."