But as a political tactic, stonewalling is always risky. In the past few weeks the questions have become too persistent, the evidence too troubling. As she launches a national media tour to promote her new book, “It Takes ‘a Village,” Mrs. Clinton may be spending more time talking about congressional subpoenas than child development. The First Lady has grudgingly accepted that she can no longer remain silent while Sen. Al D’Amato grills her staffers–and while damaging documents east doubt on her credibility. Mrs. Clinton’s friends are urging her to testify before D’Amato’s panel, and White House sources say she is seriously considering it. “She should just say, ‘OK, boys, here I come, ready or not’,” says one intimate.
D’Amato claims he hasn’t subpoenaed the First Lady because of the “dignity” of her position. Democrats suspect he is wary of her. In her 1994 “pink press conference”–she wore a bright pink suit–Mrs. Clinton ably deflected many of these issues. Now, by vowing to cooperate, the Clintons again hope to quell Whitewater and Travel-gate before they become central to the ‘96 campaign. But it may not be quite so easy. On Capitol Hill this week, GOP investigators will call witnesses to underscore discrepancies in the First Lady’s accounts of her role in what Washington is calling “the Clinton scandals.” Little the First Couple has said–from the president’s East Room press conference to Mrs. Clinton’s interview with Barbara Walters last week–clears up the inconsistencies. So are the Clintons coming clean–or are they trying to snow the voters and Congress?
Embarrassing testimony is expected. In the fall of ‘95, David Watkins, then director of administration for the White House, wrote a memo saying that Mrs. Clinton had ordered him to fire the Travel Office staff. When the document surfaced just after New Year’s, it caused a sensation; Mrs. Clinton had told investigators earlier that she played “no role” in the purge. And in recent interviews the First Lady claims she was “concerned” about the Travel Office’s alleged financial mismanagement but did not direct that anybody be dismissed.
Watkins, who later lost his job after he used a Marine helicopter to go golfing, will be asked about fresh evidence that cronyism, not financial mismanagement, was the real reason for the Travel Office firings. Investigators have discovered another memo, written nine days after Clinton,s Inauguration, that lays out an ambitious campaign by some Clinton friends–Harry Thomason and his partner, Darnell Martens–to become official White House advisers on aviation policy as well as win lucrative air-charter contracts from the government. “These guys are sharp,” Clinton wrote his aides after meeting with his buddy Thomason in the Oval Office on Feb. 7. But Billy Dale, the career civil servant in charge of the travel operation, rebuffed the president’s friends. It was then, GOP investigators say, that Mrs. Clinton ordered aides, including Watkins and deputy counsel Vince Foster, to get rid of the travel staff. (Foster’s July ‘95 suicide note indicates that the affair was deeply troubling him.)
Among other witnesses on the Hill will be Carolyn Huber, whom independent counsel Kenneth Starr has also subpoenaed to testify before a grand jury this week. She is the staffer who miraculously discovered Mrs. Clinton,s Madison billing records in the East Wing–two years after investigators first demanded them. The documents are covered with Foster’s handwriting, and Republicans will argue that these records may have been spirited out of his office the night he died. More broadly, D’Amato wants to know just what the First Lady did for Madison, the savings and loan whose collapse cost taxpayers $60 million. Did her work before state regulators appointed by her husband help keep the failing thrift afloat-however many hours were billed? Few of the First Lady’s recollections have completely checked out. Last week the Rose lawyer who Mrs. Clinton has said brought in the Madison business, Rick Massey, seemed to contradict her. Though he said he did most of the day-to-day Madison work, he does not know how the savings and loan became a Rose client. This is the sort of niggling D’Amato hopes will undermine Mrs. Clinton’s flat assertions of innocence.
By now the White House has tried just about every Washington damage-control technique. First the Clintons brought in “wise men” like David Gergen. But instead of taking the old hand’s advice to disclose everything, they listened to their private lawyers and stonewalled. The Clintons’ latest strategy: appear to be open–but remain combative. The White House plans to increase the public role of Robert Bennett, a pugnacious, media-savvy litigator. Bennett is already handling the response to the sexual-harassment suit filed by Paula Jones, who claims the president propositioned her in a hotel room when he was governor. Look for Bennett to speak out on Whitewater as well. The Clintons’ regular Whitewater lawyer, David Kendall, had been the one counseling the Clintons to say as little as possible. There’s plenty of legal work to go around: New York’s attorney general is investigating what Mrs. Clinton did in exchange for $100,000 from a partially state-funded Center on Education and the Economy in ‘90 and ‘91.
Often, firing the key figure in a scandal is the most effective solution. But you can’t demand a First Lady’s resignation. In fact, the president is manfully rising to her defense. After New York Times columnist William Satire called Mrs. Clinton a “congenital liar,” the president threatened–through his spokesman–to punch him in the nose.
The White House claims that, at least so far, Mrs. Clinton’s woes have not affected her husband’s polls. They think they see the beginnings of a sympathy vote, particularly among women. The First Couple is less sanguine about their financial fortunes. Clinton acknowledged that he and Hillary are basically broke, overwhelmed by lawyers’ bills. To some extent, the president was poor-mouthing. As Clinton conceded, he will be able to earn a “good living” after he leaves office. A former president can command as much as $100,000 for a speech–and millions more for books.
PHOTO (COLOR): Plowing ahead: Buffeted by damaging documents, the Clintons try to fight back
Hillary Clinton goes on the road this week to promote her new book–and to answer allegations that she has misled investigators and the public. But no matter how impassioned her defense, congressional Republicans will be publicly parsing her apparent inconsistencies. A few flash points:
Legend for Chart: A - WHAT SHE SAYS B - THE PAPER TRAIL A B Travel Office “Mrs. Clinton does not know the origin of a the decision to remove the White House Travel Office employees.” White House response to questions from the General Accounting Office, 1994. “[Vincent] Foster regularly informed me that the First Lady was concerned and desired action–the action desired was the firing of the Travel Office staff.” Memo by former White House aide David Watkins, 1993. Madison Guaranty “Over those 15 months [from ‘85 to ‘86] I did about an hour a week worth of work. There is no way that I think of an hour a week over 15 months as being a significant amount of work.” Mrs. Clinton in a Newsweek interview, 1996. Mrs. Clinton discussed legal matters with Madison officials on 16 occasions and had 28 conferences or calls with Rose lawyers about Madison–but accounts conflict about what she did. Rose Law Firm records. Castle Grande “I don’t believe I knew anything about [Castle Grande].” Mrs. Clinton to federal regulators, 1994. This week she said she knew Castle Grande under another name, IDC. Mrs. Clinton had 14 meetings or phone calls with a Madison official on what Feds called the “sham” land deal–widely known as “Castle Grande.” Rose Law Firm records.
