No doubt Mr. Foster and company consider us mischievous (at best). . . . Does the law mean one thing for critics and another for friends? Will we in the end have to go to court to get a reply, or will even that work? Does it take a $50,000-a day fine to get this mule's attention? . . . Who ensures that this administration follows the law, or explains why not? A good question. While Constitutional law may not have been the big part of the Rose firm's practice, it seems to us that a good man for the job would be deputy counsel Foster.
One week later, on June 24, 1993, the Journal ran another editorial entitled "Vincent Foster's Victory", which focused on a decision by the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia that Hillary Rodham Clinton was the functional equivalent of a federal employee and, therefore, the Health Care Task Force she headed need not meet in public pursuant to the Federal Advisory Committee Act ("FACA"). The editorial states:
As for Iran-Contra, we suspect that Vincent Foster and Ollie North might hit it off.
After all, we're supposed to believe that the health task force "officially" disbanded on May 30, and so FACA's requirements are moot. That is, we're supposed to believe that Mrs. Clinton and her associates will never ever hold off-the-books meetings with "non-government" advisers to get the reform plan finished.
Foster was unaccustomed to such criticism He was distraught over these editorials, and told others that they were mean-spirited and factually baseless. He believed the Journal would continue attacking him and others within the Administration until someone from Arkansas was forced out of the White House. He noted to his sister Sheila and to Kennedy that his friends and colleagues in Arkansas read the Journal and voiced his concern that the editorials would damage his reputation. Foster told Sheila's husband, Beryl Anthony, that he had spent a lifetime building his reputation and that it was now being tarnished.
Sheila Anthony tried without success to make Foster understand that this was "par for the course" in Washington politics. Colleagues at the White House made similar comments and attempted to joke with Foster about the editorials, but Foster found no humor in them.
On July 19, 1993, the Journal ran another editorial that mentioned Foster. That editorial was critical of the speed at which the Administration was moving to replace FBI Director William Sessions, and compared it to the Administration's handling of the Travel Office matter. The editorial noted that Foster was involved in the Travel Office matter, and stated that, "The mores on display from the Rose alumni are far from confidence-building." (1)
Foster's views about the importance of reputation are reflected in his commencement address to The University of Arkansas Law School at Fayetteville, Arkansas, on May 8, 1993. Many of those interviewed referred to the speech as a source of insight into Foster's attitudes. On the topic of reputation Foster told his audience:
The reputation you develop for intellectual and ethical integrity will be your greatest asset or your worst enemy. . . . Treat every pleading, every brief, every contract, every letter, every daily task as if your career will be judged on it. . . . I cannot make this point to you too strongly. There is no victory, no advantage, no fee, no favor which is worth even a blemish on your reputation for intellect and integrity. Nothing travels faster than an accusation that another lawyer's word is no good. . . . Dents to the reputation in the legal profession are irreparable. . (2)
Sheila Anthony recalls that during his address Foster's voice was unnaturally strained and tense, reminiscent of their father's voice when he was distraught during the period before his death in 1991. Foster's distress about adverse publicity is plainly reflected in the torn note found in his briefcase. In reference to the Journal editorials, he wrote that "The WSJ editors lie without consequence." He concluded the note by stating, "I was not meant for the job or the spotlight of public life in Washington. Here ruining people is considered sport." (3)
(1) The June 17, June 24 and July 19
Journal editorials are attached as Exhibit 6.
(2) The full text of the address is
attached as Exhibit 7.
(3) Foster also exhibited distress
over criticism received by the Administration regarding matters
in which he was involved. For example, he was actively involved
in the selection of a nominee for United States Attorney General.
On the night that Zoe Baird withdrew from consideration, Foster
had what was described as an anxiety attack. He went to bed at
about 2:30 a.m., sweating profusely, and became sick. He told
family members that he felt that everyone was criticizing him.
Beryl Anthony said that Foster blamed himself for the failed nomination
and was concerned that he had let down the President.