Starr-Crossed Election?
"The most politically powerful person in America today." So conservative columnist Robert Novak approvingly quotes an unnamed Democrat speaking of Kenneth Starr. At this point, the Whitewater independent counsel appears to have a greater ability to shape the 1996 presidential campaign even than Citizen Dole. All the more reason for Starr to think about unveiling the results of his inquiry sooner rather than later.
Let's put aside for the moment the controversy over Starr's variety pack of potential conflicts of interest. He hasn't quit, and he has spent more than $20 million on his nearly two-year investigation. For all that, taxpayers ought to reap substantial benefit. One such benefit would be some understanding of Whitewater when such understanding has its highest value.
Starr nabbed former Justice Department number-three Webster Hubbell for bilking the Rose Law Firm when he was still in Arkansas. He won guilty verdicts against fraudmeisters Jim and Susan McDougal, the Whitewater business partners of the Clintons, and against Governor Jim Guy Tucker. Next up is a trial of two Arkansas bankers charged with mishandling funds, some of which may have been funneled to Clinton's 1990 gubernatorial campaign. These Little Rock-based prosecutions do not address Starr's main mission. The essence of Whitewater is not whether Jim McDougal is a crook, or whether two bankers misappropriated a few thousand bucks and contributed them to the Clinton campaign. (At least two Dole campaigns, including the current one, have been accused of accepting illegal donations.) Starr is duty-bound to follow the legal trail wherever it leads, but he's on the beat to determine whether the Clintons and/or their close associates in government acted illegally in connection with the Whitewater land deal, the subsequent federal investigation of collapsed S&L Madison Guaranty, the handling of related records (including those of their attorney Vince Foster) and the Travelgate mess.
The recently completed trial and the upcoming one will not provide information for evaluating whether Bill and Hillary Clinton are the conniving, stonewalling sleazes they are portrayed to be by their enemies. But as long as Starr's inquiry dribbles along, Whitewater will supply the right with more ammunition.
Trials can be poor vehicles for getting at the truth. Fortunately, independent counsels produce detailed reports that can be more informative than the court action, and Starr will eventually have to file such a document. He should consider releasing one before the election, so that the fog of Whitewater can be dispersed. Senator Alfonse D'Amato scheduled the release of his Whitewater committee report for mid-June, but it's unlikely that it will do much to settle matters. For nearly two sessions of Congress, D'Amato has squawked about "suspicious questions," and he vowed that his report will "raise serious questions about the conduct" of the Clintons and their supporters' testimony. Is it too much to ask, after more than a million dollars and all that time, that his committee provide some answers to the questions? D'Amato's chest-thumping was ill-timed, considering the disclosure that he pocketed $37,000 in an insiderish stock trade conducted for him under -- to use his word -- "suspicious" circumstances by a firm that had a shady reputation. D'Amato's Whitewater report no doubt has been written with one goal uppermost: Keep the scandal alive.
That brings us to Starr. He need not wait until the end of his inquiry to put out a report. Independent counsels have produced interim reports covering large segments of their investigations. Starr could do the same -- and do so in a manner to inform the debate of 1996. Such an interim report should appear no later than the end of September to provide citizens, politicians and journalists time to sift through it before the election. Starr should be pushing to conclude parts of his inquiry by then. Instead, he seems to be looking to enlarge his workload. After the White House disclosed that it had obtained -- inadvertently, it maintains -- F.B.I. background files on some 340 people, Starr expanded his inquiry to include that screw-up.
The public deserves to know as much as it can about Whitewater before it decides for whom the vote tolls. Starr should serve that need. But timing is all. Imagine the effect of a Whitewater-related verdict or indictment rendered in late October -- if only on a tangential bit of the affair. Or of withholding exculpatory evidence (if it exists) until after the election. Or of admitting there's nothing to prosecute vis-à-vis the Clintons.
How Starr handles his investigation in the coming months could change the course of a national election. Consequently, setting guidelines for the manner in which he can and cannot release information is warranted -- especially given Starr's political baggage. He should be put on notice: No politically motivated delays. No October surprises.
DAVID CORN
