July 18, 1995 - Part 2
July 18, 1995 - Part 2
(11:35:26) With that in mind, I have examined the depositions and reviewed the documents. I will say, Mr. Chairman, there are some inconsistencies in various recollections of what happened on the night of July 20, 1993 and the next few days. Based on those inconsistencies, I think we can draw one of two broad conclusions from the testimony. One alternative is that within one single hour of finding out that their beloved friend and co-worker had committed suicide, White House staff plotted an elaborate conspiracy which they executed in 45 minutes, a conspiracy which no investigator to date has yet been able to uncover. Or, Mr. Chairman, we can conclude that a grief stricken and distraught collection of very human people made some decisions which we, in hindsight, might question. There is one aspect of the depositions that was especially poignant to me: The number of times witnesses testified to the emotional distress at the Foster family home and the White House. Words kept recurring: "Visibly upset," "distraught ... .. sobbing," "exhausted," "physically spent," "grief stricken," "total shock" and "shaken." One seasoned police official described the scene at the White House as one of "total disbelief and nearly nonfunctional." That is how people react when they lose a loved one. As I read those depositions, I asked myself, how would we react if one of our most trusted and loyal staff members committed suicide? Would we demand that their issue files about the Banking Committee be searched for a suicide note? Would we disregard their family's concerns about the privacy of their loved one's personal papers? We would not do that, Mr., Chairman, Real people in real places with real grief do not behave that way. That is how I approach this unhappy situation. Mr. Chairman, I hope that we can keep some perspective as we go through these hearings and hear the testimony. Lets not add to the chilling thought that, here, ruining people is considered sport, The CHAIRMAN, Thank you, Senator. Senator Bennett. 34 OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR ROBERT F. BENNETT Senator BENNETT Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have enjoyed the opening statements and the scope that we seem to be getting into here. I was interested when Senator Boxer quoted from The New York Times and that stimulated me to go to the editorial that appeared in this morning's Times, and I would like to quote from it because it summarizes my view of the scope of this thing. The Times begins: When the matter now known as Whitewater first arose during the 1992 Presidential campaign, candidate Bill Clinton called it no big deal, hut he and his staff in the campaign, and later at the White House, stonewalled on the details that would have revealed whether he and Mrs. Clinton were telling the truth about their finances. Today's renewed Senate hearings on Whitewater are the bitter- fruit of those original evasions. For reasons known but to them, the Clintons have offered tricky answers that brought confusion rather than clarity to their land deals with the high-rolling Arkansas banker and campaign supporter named Jim McDougal. The editorial goes on to say: For 3 years now, the Clinton team has acted as if anything connected to Whitewater was a can of worms that no one had a right to open. It has denounced as political enemies anyone who expressed reasonable curiosity about who paid what moneys and for what purpose. Some of those in charge of the inquiry are indeed their political enemies, yet they are only seeking what should have been offered- voluntarily. The editorial summarizes this with a single sentence that, in the classic line, I wish I had been able to write myself- One of the enduring mysteries of this Presidency is why Mr. Clinton has been willing to absorb such tremendous political damage rather than authorize a full accounting of the Whitewater deal. Senator Sarbanes summarized it well, however, when he said to-, day's focus is not on this overall aspect that we've heard so much about in the opening statements. Today's focus is on the proper handling of the documents in Vince Foster's office. Some have asked why we need to do that so long after the fact, as the death of Mr. Foster was a personal tragedy of a man who was well respected and well liked.