|
|
 | OPENING THE FLOOD GATES?
JUNE 18, 1996TRANSCRIPT |
|---|
The NewsHour's regular political analysts, syndicated columnist Mark Shields and Wall Street Journal columnist Paul Gigot, discuss the meaning of the Whitewater reports and how different the Republicans' and Democrats' versions are.
Kwame Holman reports on the Republican charges contained in the Whitewater report and the misgivings about the whole investigation detailed in the Senate Democrats' report.
Senators Robert Bennett (R-UT) and Paul Sarbanes (D-MD) debate the accuracy of the report's findings and how much partisan politics played in the Whitewater committee's work.
Sen. Alfonse D'Amato's statement on the release of the Whitewater report. Sen. D'Amato was chair of the Whitewater committee.
The preface to the Senate Democrats' version of the Whitewater report. Democratic members were highly critical of how the committee conducted their investigation.
After a copy of the Republican's Whitewater report was leaked to the Washington Post, White House spokesperson Mike McCurry labelled the document as a partisan attack.
MAY 28: Hillary Clinton discusses Whitewater and her role in the White House with Jim Lehrer.
FEB. 22: Deputy Chief of Staff Harold Ickes testifies before the Whitewater committee.
DEC 15: Sen. Alfonse D'Amato and Sen. Paul Sarbanes debates the merits of the Whitewater committee's investigations.
Click here for a complete list of the NewsHour's coverage of Whitewater
MARGARET WARNER: We get that political analysis from syndicated columnist Mark Shields and Wall Street Journal columnist Paul Gigot. Paul, who makes the more telling case? Who's got the most telling case here?
PAUL GIGOT, Wall Street Journal: Well, it's fascinating. There are very different cases. I mean, the Republicans build a case, a case of circumstantial evidence really. It's built on fact after fact, contradiction after contradiction, comparing testimony, and they build it relentlessly, page after page, and then they draw some conclusions based on that. They deduce some conclusions. The Democratic case is: you didn't prove your conclusions, therefore, it's a partisan effort, it's really not--we don't care about it, and besides Al D'Amato is a jerk. So you can ignore the whole thing. If you compare the two cases, I think the fact after fact after fact really isn't refuted here by the Democrats, and that, that leaves it out there for readers to interpret.
MARGARET WARNER: Mark, how do you see it, comparing these two?
MARK SHIELDS, Syndicated Columnist: Well, first of all, Margaret, I think Democrats ought to thank their lucky stars that Bob Bennett, the Senator from Utah that was just on with Jim, was not the chairman of that committee. He exudes a sense of fairness. There's not any cheap shot, partisan ranting to him. And he makes a good case. It fascinated me most, quite frankly, to hear conservative Sen. Bennett praising, heaping compliments upon career public employees of the federal government. Usually conservative Republicans scorn these folks as faceless bureaucrats, but in this case, they come in for a lot of praise from Republicans today which I'm sure they're appreciative of.
As far as the conclusion is concerned, the President walked away unscathed, untouched in a political sense. I mean, there was no allegation of abuse of power while he was governor. There was no allegation of abuse of power since he's been President in this investigation. As far as Mrs. Clinton, I think you could see the ambivalence that the Republicans really feel. They want to go after her. They make their case against her, but it's a political mine field for them. Republicans can ill afford to alienate college-educated, working professional women, and that is Mrs. Clinton's strongest personal constituency. These are people who see her as somebody who is beleaguered, who has been attacked for the very reason that she has been, a working, professional woman. And so I think politically, uh, we won't know how it does play out, but I think the fact that there's no charges against the President and that the object of the Republicans' attack seems to be the First Lady, uh, doesn't bode well for the Republicans tonight.
MARGARET WARNER: What about those two back-to-back points?
PAUL GIGOT: Well, it is about the conduct of the White House, and it's about the conduct of the Clinton presidency and particularly the counsel's office, which is the heart of any White House's ethical center. Those are the people who deal with ethical complaints. These are the people you rely upon to make a fair argument. Bernie Nussbaum was the President's general counsel, and then this is about things that happened in the Clinton presidency because Vince Foster died in Washington, and what happened after that was something that happened under his watch. And the Resolution Trust Corporation handling of the criminal referral, that was also in the first term of the Clinton Presidency, so, I mean, I don't think you can say the President walked out unscathed. This is his Presidency.
MARGARET WARNER: Mark, do you think that the President and the White House can escape any kind of political damage here by just, by saying this is just purely political?
MARK SHIELDS: Oh, no, I don't, Margaret, and let me just say to Paul, I commend him for saying in the "first term" of the Clinton Presidency, which presupposes or assumes there must going to be a second term, so I didn't know if we're making predictions here tonight, but 20 weeks to go in the campaign--
PAUL GIGOT: Better than talking about Whitewater, Mark. (laughter in room)
MARK SHIELDS: Well, quite frankly, I think that's, that's the problem for the White House. The White House says that we're talking about Whitewater, we're talking about FBI investigations, we're talking about Travelgate. The conversation, Margaret, the political conversation, the public conversation in the United States has been switched. It's been switched from a focus on the shortcomings, failings of the Republican Congress and the unpopularity of the Speaker of the House and his being joined at the hip to the Republican nominee for President to, in fact, this, and quite frankly, this is not where the Clinton administration wants or the Clinton political operation wants the conversation to be. They want it to be on the fact that deficit gone from $292 billion to $125 billion, or unemployment's down by a third. That's where they want, that's where they want the conversation, but no, this is politically harmful.
MARGARET WARNER: Paul, what about the other point that Mark made, though, that taking on the First Lady is politically two-edged here for the Republicans?
PAUL GIGOT: I don't see that at all. I mean, look, if you're going to have power, you have to have accountability. The two go hand in hand. And the President of the United States made the argument early on in the campaign of 1992, two for the price of one. I mean, nobody has been walking around in the White House thinking that, that Hillary Clinton is off limits, she's a shrinking violet, she can't take it. If you're going--I mean, it was her aides, her chief of staff, her friends, who came to Vincent Foster's office after the suicide in the flurry of activity that created so many problems for the White House. So holding the First Lady, a woman of power and substance and intelligence, accountable for her behavior strikes me as completely fair if you're going to want that kind of power.
MARGARET WARNER: Guys, we have to leave it there, but we'll be back Friday. Thanks.
| |||||
 | |||||
| |||||
|
|
| |||
| |||||
| |||||
| Support the kind of journalism done by the NewsHour...Become a member of your local PBS station. | |||||
