DOCSLIB.ORG

Journal of the 372 T30.7

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Journal of the 372 T30.7 T30.7 JOURNAL OF THE MARCH 24 with the Senate thereon, was, by unan- and faithfully discharge the duties of latory agencies to request certain doc- imous consent, laid on the table. the office.' uments of an oversight interest [exam- Thereupon, the SPEAKER pro tem- ``If the majority party refuses to up- ple, Tab A]. In a followup letter I pore, Mrs. KENNELLY, by unanimous hold its responsibilities because of po- pointed out, as the courts have noted, consent, announced the appointment of litical embarrassment to its party's `The Congress rarely acts as a body. Its Messrs. BRYANT, GLICKMAN, FRANK, top elected official, the minority party manifold duties in the legislative, in- FISH and GEKAS, as managers on the is left with the choice either of joining vestigative, and oversight fields are al- part of the House at said conference. in a complicity of silence or pursuing most invariably carried out through Ordered, That the Clerk notify the investigations that run the danger of committees, committee chairmen, in- Senate thereof. being partisan. dividual members, and staff personnel.' ``In this context, I would simply em- Murphy v. Department of Army, 613 F.2d T30.7 POINT OF PERSONAL PRIVILEGE phasize that I raised the Whitewater 1151, 1156 (1979). In addition, the court Mr. LEACH rose to a question of per- issue with great reluctance, realizing stated: sonal privilege. the import as well as the power of the The Senate and the House are so organized The SPEAKER pro tempore, Mrs. Presidency. I fully understand the po- that certain legislative and quasi-legislative KENNELLY, pursuant to clause 1 of litical and personal liabilities involved. activities may be accomplished only through rule IX, recognized Mr. LEACH for one Nonetheless, I feel it would be incon- committee action. In other respects, how- hour. sistent, indeed, hypocritical, to my ever, the legislature acts through its individ- Mr. LEACH made the following state- own values, if I refused to pursue a line ual Members. All Members have a constitu- ment: of inquiry potentially embarrassing to tionally recognized status entitling them to share in general congressional powers and re- ``Madam Speaker, I rise to a point of the President of a country which from its inception was intended to be sponsibilities, many of them requiring access personal privilege of the House. to executive information. It would be an in- ``In rising to this point of privilege, I hallmarked by law and its applicability appropriate intrusion into the legislative wish to express concern about the to all citizens. It is, after all, the estab- sphere for the courts to decide without con- breakdown of comity that has occurred lishment of a government of laws, not gressional direction that, for example, only on a personal and procedural level in men, that defines the uniqueness of the the chairman of a committee shall be re- the House Banking Committee. American experiment with democracy. garded as the official voice of the Congress ``On a personal level, unfortunate ad- ``Procedurally, it should be noted for purposes of receiving such information, jectives have been used; on a proce- that the minority is currently engaged as distinguished from its ranking minority in one of the most profound checks and member, or other committee members, or dural level, unprecedented tactics have other members of Congress. Each of them been employed. balances philosophical engagements participates in the law-making process; each ``I don't wish to dwell on the per- with the executive branch in the mod- has a voice and a vote in that process; and sonal, except to stress my high regard ern history of the Congress. This en- each is entitled to request such information for the chairman of the Banking Com- gagement carries far greater implica- from the executive agencies as will enable mittee and to suggest that, as the the- tions than any judgment relating to a him to carry out the responsibilities of a leg- ologian Reinhold Niebuhr once ob- particular embarrassment of a particu- islator. served, the temper and integrity of the lar public official at a particular time ``Agency heads responded that a political debate is more important in because at issue is precedent: whether ranking member only has the author- our kind of democracy than the out- in future circumstances the oversight ity of an individual Member of Con- come of any issue. capacities of Congress can be thwarted gress and, therefore, may only obtain ``Motivational aspersions are no sub- if the majority party of Congress is the information that would be available to stitute for full disclosure; indignation same as that in control of the execu- the public pursuant to the Freedom of no substitute for pursuit of truth. tive branch and chooses to refrain from Information Act. In addition, the Office ``Members of the majority may be its oversight obligations in order not of Thrift Supervision asserted that it speaking the truth when they indicate to embarrass its party's standings. differs `with the view that Rules X and they have no evidence of a link be- ``It is possible that the constitutional XI of the House of Representatives tween the failure of an Arkansas S&L precedent for our checks and balances grant to a ranking minority memberÐ and Whitewater and that they know of system surrounding the refusal of the or any individual memberÐthe same no improprieties at issue. But it should administration to cooperate with an authority to request information that be understood that not speaking an un- oversight probe of the executive branch a committee chairman possesses.' In truth is not the same as describing a which the majority party does not short, the agencies contend that only truthful situation, particularly if there sanction may have more long-term chairmen, not ranking members, speak has been no serious effort to pursue the negative consequences than any epi- for Congress. truth. sodic embarrassment that might relate ``Subsequently, on March 8, 1994, I ``Constitutionally it is the duty of to this or any President's past. What is wrote requesting information for the Congress to oversee breaches of law or at issue is the definition of Congress as Banking Committee's upcoming RTC public ethics in the executive branch. it applies to the constitutionally oversight hearing [Tab B]. Agency During the 12 years of the so-called di- granted oversight responsibilities of heads again responded by holding to vided Government of the Reagan/Bush the legislature. In our checks and bal- the position that only the chairman of era, the legislative branch took its con- ances system, Congress was given over- a committee would be permitted access stitutionally mandated oversight func- sight responsibilities, but this adminis- to agency documents. tion seriously, as witnessed by the ex- tration is suggesting in response to mi- ``In this dispute about who is entitled pansion in the size of its staff and the nority requests for documentation to speak for Congress in the context of number of investigations undertaken. from executive agencies that only Congress' right and obligation under ``Now both the executive and the leg- chairmen speak for Congress. The mi- Article I of the Constitution to conduct islative branches of Government are nority in Congress, by this logic, has oversight of the executive branch, the controlled by the same political party. no power to advance or fulfill its con- chairman of the Banking Committee, The oversight mandate thus falls dis- stitutional rights if the majority does in what may have been an effort to bol- proportionately upon the ranking not concur in request for information. ster the executive's position, wrote members of the respective committees If such precedent is allowed to stand, agency heads on March 10, 1994, to sug- for those areas of the executive branch Congress's oversight capacities will for gest that they deny my document re- over which they have jurisdiction. Not all practical purposes be hamstrung quest and wrote separately on March to assume leadership in performing the whenever the executive and legislative 14, 1994, to state that they need not an- oversight function with regard to the branches of Government are controlled swer questions concerning Madison way in which the financial institutions by the same party. Would our Found- Guaranty Savings and Loan at the of this country are managed and regu- ing Fathers have had this in mind? scheduled hearings [Tabs C and D]. The lated would be to violate my oath to ``In this connection, on December 9, chairman's letter contained an implicit `support and defend the Constitution of 1993, as ranking member of the Bank- and unprecedented philosophical asser- the United States * * * and * * * well ing Committee, I wrote Federal regu- tion that not only does a chairman 372 1994 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES T30.7 have the exclusive right to obtain over- sight hearings, questions related to in- duty of the minority party, as the ma- sight documents from the executive dividual institutions have been asked jority. Indeed, in real life circumstance branch, but the right to deny such doc- by committee members, including the as evidenced in this particular inci- umentation to other Members and the chairman, and answered by witnesses. dent, oversight may in practice imply a right even to deny inquiries about In fact, the committee's invitation let- greater obligation on the party out of issues clearly germane to the subject of ter of March 3, 1994, to Treasury Sec- power than the party in control of the hearings. retary Bentsen for purposes of the RTC executive branch. ``So that there is no misunderstand- oversight hearing, seeks testimony and ``Hodding Carter, the distinguished ing, the RTC oversight hearing was documents related to a specific institu- journalist from Mississippi, recently scheduled under requirement of law, tion, Homefed Savings.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Vol IV Part F Ch. 1 DOJ Handling of the RTC Referrals
    PART F THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE'S HANDLING OF THE RTC CRIMINAL REFERRALS AND THE CONTACTS BETWEEN THE WHITE HOUSE AND THE DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY Chapter 1: DOJ Handling of the RTC Referrals I. INTRODUCTION The potential involvement of President Clinton with matters in criminal referral C-0004 raised questions about the proper handling of the referral by the Department of Justice. The referral identified him and Mrs. Clinton as potential witnesses to the alleged criminal conduct relating to Madison Guaranty by Jim McDougal. The delay in full consideration of the referral between September 1992 and the ultimate appointment of a regulatory independent counsel in January 1994 required investigation of whether any action during that time was intended to prevent full examination of the conduct alleged in the referral. Whether before or after the 1992 election of President Clinton, any action that had the effect of delaying or impeding the investigation could raise the question of whether anyone in the Department of Justice unlawfully obstructed the investigation in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1505. This investigation examined the conduct and motives of Department of Justice officials in a position to influence the handling of the referral. These officials included President Bush's U.S. Attorney in Little Rock, President Clinton's subsequent appointee as the U.S. Attorney, and officials at the Department of Justice headquarters in Washington D.C. both at the end of the Bush Administration and during the first year of the Clinton Administration. II. FINDINGS The Independent Counsel concluded the evidence was insufficient to prove that any Department of Justice official obstructed justice by engaging in conduct intended to delay or impede the investigation of the RTC's criminal referral C-0004.
    [Show full text]
  • Whitewater Scandal Essential Question: What Was the Whitewater Scandal About? How Did It Change Arkansas? Guiding Question and Objectives
    Lesson Plan #4 Arkansas History Whitewater Scandal Essential Question: What was the Whitewater Scandal about? How did it change Arkansas? Guiding Question and Objectives: 1. Explain the impact of the Whitewater Scandal and how this effected the public and the people involved. 2. How do politicians and the politics make an impact on the world? 3. Is there an ethical way to deal with a scandal? NCSS strands I. Culture II. Time, Continuity, and Change III. People, Places, and Environments IV. Individual Development and Identity V. Individuals, Groups, and Institutions AR Curriculum Frameworks: PD.5.C.3 Evaluate various influences on political parties during the electoral process (e.g., interest groups, lobbyists, Political Action Committees [PACs], major events) Teacher Background information: The Whitewater controversy (also known as the Whitewater scandal, or simply Whitewater) began with an investigation into the real estate investments of Bill and Hillary Clinton and their associates, Jim and Susan McDougal, in the Whitewater Development Corporation, a failed business venture in the 1970s and 1980s. — http://www.encyclopediaofarkansas.net/ encyclopedia/entry-detail.aspx?entryID=4061 Materials needed: The Whitewater Scandal reading —see handout Assessment —see handout Opening activity: Ask what the Whitewater Scandal might be? Plot information on the board and guide the students into the direction of the Bill Clinton’s presidency. Activities: 7 minutes—Discuss and determine what the Whitewater Scandal might be. 25 minutes—Read the handout, take notes, and discuss materials while displaying the information opposed to strict lecturing. 30 minutes—Complete the assessment and have students share their findings. 28 minutes—Students will discuss their findings and discuss their impressions of the scandal.
    [Show full text]
  • Arkansas Supreme Court Project Arkansas Supreme Court Historical Society Interview with Ray Thornton Little Rock, Arkansas September 20, 2011
    This oral history with former Justice Ray Thornton was conducted in two parts, on September 20, 2011, by Scott Lunsford of the David and Barbara Pryor Center for Oral and Visual History at the University of Arkansas and on February 21, 2013, by Ernest Dumas. The second interview goes into more detail on some aspects of his political career, particularly the Supreme Court. The Dumas interview follows the end of the Lunsford interview. Arkansas Supreme Court Project Arkansas Supreme Court Historical Society Interview with Ray Thornton Little Rock, Arkansas September 20, 2011 Interviewer: Scott Lunsford Scott Lunsford: Today’s date is September 20 and the year is 2011 and we’re in Little Rock at 1 Gay Place. I’m sorry, I don’t know the name of the person whose residence we are at, but we decided we wanted kind of a quiet, withdrawn place to do this interview and Julie Baldridge, your loyal helper… Ray Thornton: She and I have worked together for many years and she is really an extraordinary person. And on this day she has just been named the interim director of the Arkansas Scholarship Lottery Commission staff in Little Rock. SL: That’s a great honor. RT: Well, it is for her and she deserves it. SL: Well, we’re very grateful for her help in finding this place and getting us together. Let me say first that it is a great honor to be sitting across from you and I’ve looked forward to this for some time. Now, let me give you a brief description of what we’re doing here.
    [Show full text]
  • Investigation of Whitewater Development Corporation and Related Matters
    104TH CONGRESS REPORT 2d Session SENATE 104±280 "! INVESTIGATION OF WHITEWATER DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION AND RELATED MATTERS F I N A L R E P O R T OF THE SPECIAL COMMITTEE TO INVESTIGATE WHITEWATER DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION AND RELATED MATTERS TOGETHER WITH ADDITIONAL AND MINORITY VIEWS JUNE 17, 1996.ÐOrdered to be printed Filed under authority of the order of the Senate of June 13, 1996 INVESTIGATION OF WHITEWATER DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION AND RELATED MATTERSÐFINAL REPORT 1 104TH CONGRESS REPORT 2d Session SENATE 104±280 "! INVESTIGATION OF WHITEWATER DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION AND RELATED MATTERS F I N A L R E P O R T OF THE SPECIAL COMMITTEE TO INVESTIGATE WHITEWATER DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION AND RELATED MATTERS TOGETHER WITH ADDITIONAL AND MINORITY VIEWS JUNE 17, 1996.ÐOrdered to be printed Filed under authority of the order of the Senate of June 13, 1996 U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 25±225 WASHINGTON : 1996 SPECIAL COMMITTEE TO INVESTIGATE WHITEWATER DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION AND RELATED MATTERS ALFONSE M. D'AMATO, New York, Chairman RICHARD C. SHELBY, Alabama PAUL S. SARBANES, Maryland CHRISTOPHER S. BOND, Missouri CHRISTOPHER J. DODD, Connecticut CONNIE MACK, Florida JOHN F. KERRY, Massachusetts LAUCH FAIRCLOTH, North Carolina RICHARD H. BRYAN, Nevada ROBERT F. BENNETT, Utah BARBARA BOXER, California ROD GRAMS, Minnesota CAROL MOSELEY-BRAUN, Illinois PETE V. DOMENICI,* New Mexico PATTY MURRAY, Washington ORRIN G. HATCH, Utah PAUL SIMON, Illinois FRANK H. MURKOWSKI, Alaska HOWARD A. MENELL, Staff Director ROBERT J. GIUFFRA, Jr., Chief Counsel PHILIP E. BECHTEL, Deputy Staff Director STEVEN B. HARRIS, Democratic Staff Director and Chief Counsel MICHAEL CHERTOFF, Special Counsel RICHARD BEN-VENISTE, Democratic Special Counsel ALICE S.
    [Show full text]
  • The Independent Counsel Investigation, the Impeachment Proceedings, and President Clinton's Defense
    Fordham Law Review Volume 68 Issue 3 Article 7 1999 The Independent Counsel Investigation, the Impeachment Proceedings, and President Clinton's Defense: Inquiries into the Role and Responsibilities of Lawyers, Symposium, Dead Man's Privilege: Vince Foster and the Demise of Legal Ethics Michael Stokes Paulsen Follow this and additional works at: https://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/flr Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Michael Stokes Paulsen, The Independent Counsel Investigation, the Impeachment Proceedings, and President Clinton's Defense: Inquiries into the Role and Responsibilities of Lawyers, Symposium, Dead Man's Privilege: Vince Foster and the Demise of Legal Ethics, 68 Fordham L. Rev. 807 (1999). Available at: https://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/flr/vol68/iss3/7 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by FLASH: The Fordham Law Archive of Scholarship and History. It has been accepted for inclusion in Fordham Law Review by an authorized editor of FLASH: The Fordham Law Archive of Scholarship and History. For more information, please contact [email protected]. The Independent Counsel Investigation, the Impeachment Proceedings, and President Clinton's Defense: Inquiries into the Role and Responsibilities of Lawyers, Symposium, Dead Man's Privilege: Vince Foster and the Demise of Legal Ethics Cover Page Footnote Briggs & Morgan Professor of Law, University of Minnesota School of Law. My thanks to Patrick Schlitz, John Nagle, Daniel Farber, Geoffrey Stone, Susan Wolf, William Hodes, and David McGowan for their valuable comments and suggestions, and to Jay Pralle for his resourceful research. This article is available in Fordham Law Review: https://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/flr/vol68/iss3/7 DEAD MAN'S PRIVILEGE: VINCE FOSTER AND THE DEMISE OF LEGAL ETHICS Michael Stokes Paulsen INTRODUCTION T HE facts are worthy of a Grisham legal thriller or a Shakespearean tragedy, and seem to partake of elements of both.
    [Show full text]
  • A Hard Line Proposal to Stop Unaccountable Disclosures of Law Enforcement Information
    St. John's University School of Law St. John's Law Scholarship Repository Faculty Publications 1999 The Leak and the Craft: A Hard Line Proposal to Stop Unaccountable Disclosures of Law Enforcement Information John Q. Barrett St. John's University School of Law Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.stjohns.edu/faculty_publications Part of the Constitutional Law Commons, Criminal Law Commons, and the Legal Ethics and Professional Responsibility Commons This Article is brought to you for free and open access by St. John's Law Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Faculty Publications by an authorized administrator of St. John's Law Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. THE LEAK AND THE CRAFT: A HARD LINE PROPOSAL TO STOP UNACCOUNTABLE DISCLOSURES OF LAW ENFORCEMENT INFORMATION John Q. Barrett INTRODUCTION T HE critics of Kenneth W. Starr accused him, in the five-plus years that he served as the multi-tasked Independent Counsel,' of many * Associate Professor, St. John's University School of Law. A.B., Georgetown University, 1983; J.D., Harvard University, 1986. E-mail: jbarrett C-sjulawfac. stjohns.edu. This Article expands upon my presentation as part of a June 5, 1999, panel entitled "After Starr Wars, Part I: The Role and Responsibilities of the Public Prosecutor," at the American Bar Association's Center for Professional Responsibil- ity 25th National Conference. I am grateful to Mary Daly, Art Garwin, and Bruce Green for their planning efforts and invitation, to Michael Simons, Brian Tamanaha, and Sarah Walzer for very helpful comments, and to Karen R.
    [Show full text]
  • Manafort Plea Reminds Us of Whitewater
    Portfolio Media. Inc. | 111 West 19th Street, 5th floor | New York, NY 10011 | www.law360.com Phone: +1 646 783 7100 | Fax: +1 646 783 7161 | [email protected] Manafort Plea Reminds Us Of Whitewater By Lawrence Laurenzi and Joe Whitley (September 25, 2018, 6:04 PM EDT) “Today’s defendant is tomorrow’s witness” is a time-tested strategy at U.S. attorney’s offices around the country. This practice is being used by special counsel Robert Mueller in the prosecution of Paul Manafort, where after convicting him on eight counts in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, the government continued to aggressively pursue Manafort on additional counts in Virginia, as well as in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, until Manafort entered into a plea agreement this month. In applying legal pressure, the Special Counsel's Office hopes that Manafort will provide useful information that will lead to charges on others. The government employed this precise tactic in the 1990s in the Whitewater investigation. Bill and Hillary Clinton and Jim and Susan McDougal were co- Lawrence Laurenzi owners of the Whitewater Development Corp., which was formed to invest in real estate in north-central Arkansas. The Clintons and the McDougals borrowed substantial sums of money to purchase the property in 1978. This project was unsuccessful, and the Clintons eventually sold their interest back to the McDougals for a paltry $1,000. Kenneth Starr, in his recent book, "Contempt: A Memoir of the Clinton Investigation," characterized the post-trial status of the investigation as follows: “[O]ur team’s continued success was largely dependent on the cooperation of one of the McDougals.
    [Show full text]
  • Vol II Part B Ch. 1 the Final Fifteen Months of Mcdougal's Involvement
    PART B THE RELATIONSHIP OF MADISON GUARANTY, CMS, JIM McDOUGAL, THE ROSE LAW FIRM, HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON AND WILLIAM J. CLINTON Chapter 1: The Final Fifteen Months of Jim McDougal's Involvement at Madison Guaranty (1985 to Summer 1986) I. INTRODUCTION This Chapter details evidence about the relationship between three individuals (Jim McDougal, Hillary Rodham Clinton, and William J. Clinton) and four entities (Capital Management Services, Whitewater Development Company, the Rose Law Firm, and Madison Guaranty Savings & Loan) in 1985 and 1986. First, both Jim McDougal and Mrs. Clinton had a direct relationship with Madison Guaranty. McDougal, the thrift's owner and operator, hired the Rose Law Firm ("Rose") where Mrs. Clinton was a partner. Mrs. Clinton performed legal services for Madison Guaranty including work before various state agencies operating under Governor Clinton. Second, McDougal, Mrs. Clinton, Madison Guaranty, and Rose were all connected to a real estate development called Castle Grande. McDougal purchased the land and buildings from Industrial Development Corporation ("IDC") by using the resources of Madison Guaranty and its subsidiary, Madison Financial Corporation. To evade regulatory limitations on the amount Madison Guaranty could invest in real estate transactions of its service corporation, McDougal arranged for some of the land and a sewer and water utility located thereon to be purchased by Seth Ward, Rose partner Webster Hubbell's father-in-law and a Madison Financial employee. Hubbell, Mrs. Clinton, and Rose provided legal services related to Madison Financial's purchase and development of the property, including conferences with "straw purchaser" Seth Ward. Portions of Castle Grande were sold to insiders (including Jim Guy Tucker) at fraudulently inflated prices so that Madison Financial could book a "profit." The Castle Grande transactions were scrutinized by federal thrift examiners, who 98 concluded that the transactions rendered Madison Guaranty insolvent.
    [Show full text]
  • NW: 15416 Docld: 70001585 Page 39 Obtained by Judicial Watch, Inc
    Obtained by Judicial Watch, Inc. via FOIA _.- -. Memorandum Office of the Independent Counsel To: All OIC Attorneys Date: 4/22/98 From HRC Team subjec;t: Summary of Evidence I I Hillary Rodham Clinton and Webb Hubbell This memorandum summarizes the evidence available to \LS which relates to the ...._ ____________.l-:lillary Clinton and Webster Lee Hu~bcll. Section I contains a detailed summary of the evidence broken d~Wh intp the following subsectio'ns: ····· ... ···· ········ ... 1) Castle Grande 2) Other Facts Relating to RLF Work for MGSL · .. 3) 1987-1992: RLF Conflicts/Ward v. Madison/U.S. v. McDou°gal· . 4) 1992 Campaign FOi A(!J)6 5) Foster Documents FOl/\(h)7 - (C) 6) The White House and RTC Contacts 7) Billing Records 8) Support for Webb Hubbell Section II contains a chronological background and contextual summary of the investi g~t i on so that th e facts relating to possible obstruction can be placed in the context of the ongoing investigation by OIC. ·-·- "".:-) '/ J. should be read in conjunction with our "---------------------~ introduction/outline memorandwn of April 10th which, for convenience, is also included. 1 1 In almost all instances· our summary of the evidence is derivative of and relies e pon other, earlier work done by OIC attorneys. In those instances, as we did in our earlier memorandum of April 10th, we refer you to the underlying memorandum for additional background and information, should you wish to delve further into the evidence. [You receiv ed a binder with copies of significant portions of these memorandum on .Monday, the 20th].
    [Show full text]
  • Part E the Discovery and Removal of Documents from Vincent W. Foster
    PART E THE DISCOVERY AND REMOVAL OF DOCUMENTS FROM VINCENT W. FOSTER JR.'S OFFICE I. INTRODUCTION Vincent W. Foster Jr., White House Deputy Counsel, died Tuesday, July 20, 1993. Because his body was found in Fort Marcy Park, operated by the National Park Service, the United States Park Police investigated his death. The Park Police was helped in some aspects of its investigation by the Federal Bureau of Investigation ("FBI") and the Department of Justice ("DOJ").848 On Thursday, July 22, 1993, in front of Park Police, FBI and DOJ personnel, White House Counsel Bernard Nussbaum reviewed documents and other items in Foster's office849 in search of a suicide note.850 None was found. On Monday, July 26, 1993 (four days later), Associate Counsel to the President Stephen Neuwirth discovered a torn "note" apparently written by Foster, in a briefcase in Foster's office. The White House produced the note to the Park Police on July 27, 1993.851 After the note's discovery, DOJ told the FBI to conduct an obstruction of justice 848 At the press conference concluding the investigation on Aug. 10, 1993, Deputy Attorney General Phillip Heymann said: The FBI joined the Park Police in the initial stages of the inquiry into Vince Foster's death because of his status as a federal official and assassination statutes. As it became apparent that this was a suicide, the FBI gradually assumed a secondary role to the Park Police. Press Conference, Department of Justice, United States Park Police and Federal Bureau of Investigation, Report on Death of Vincent Foster, Former Deputy Assistant to the President (Aug.
    [Show full text]
  • Vol II Table of Contents Arkansas Investigation
    VOLUME II ARKANSAS INVESTIGATION TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE Part A The Clintons, the McDougals, and the Whitewater Development Company I. INTRODUCTION ...............................................................................................................1 II. FINDINGS...........................................................................................................................2 III. FACTUAL SUMMARY.....................................................................................................5 A. The Clintons' Involvement with Whitewater Began in 1978, When the Partnership First Purchased 230.24 Acres, and Ended in 1992, When the Clintons Were Bought Out by Jim McDougal ........................................6 1. The Clintons' Participation in Whitewater Grew Out of Personal, Political, and Professional Ties Between Bill Clinton and Jim McDougal..........................................................................6 a. President Clinton Met Jim McDougal in 1968 ................................6 b. Bill Clinton and Jim McDougal Began Their Financial Relationship in 1977 ........................................................7 2. The Clintons and the McDougals Formed the Whitewater Partnership in 1978 ......................................................................................9 3. The Whitewater Development Company Was Incorporated to Develop the Marion County Land in 1979 ............................................11 4. Whitewater's Lot Sales Were Sluggish......................................................12
    [Show full text]
  • The Clinton Presidency and the Analysis of Political Scandal
    Durham E-Theses The Clinton presidency and the analysis of political scandal Edmundson, Gareth M. How to cite: Edmundson, Gareth M. (2005) The Clinton presidency and the analysis of political scandal, Durham theses, Durham University. Available at Durham E-Theses Online: http://etheses.dur.ac.uk/2841/ Use policy The full-text may be used and/or reproduced, and given to third parties in any format or medium, without prior permission or charge, for personal research or study, educational, or not-for-prot purposes provided that: • a full bibliographic reference is made to the original source • a link is made to the metadata record in Durham E-Theses • the full-text is not changed in any way The full-text must not be sold in any format or medium without the formal permission of the copyright holders. Please consult the full Durham E-Theses policy for further details. Academic Support Oce, Durham University, University Oce, Old Elvet, Durham DH1 3HP e-mail: [email protected] Tel: +44 0191 334 6107 http://etheses.dur.ac.uk Gareth M. Edmundson The Clinton Presidency and the Analysis of Political Scandal Abstract This study analyses the usefulness of recent offerings from scholars, such as John Thompson, that have aimed to bring a greater understanding of the subject of political scandal, by applying them to case studies of authentic political scandals during the Clinton Presidency. Academics have attempted to discover a more authoritative definition of a political scandal and have suggested tentative theories to explain the phases of high and low scandal activity that have been experienced throughout history, this is no more evident than in the United States.
    [Show full text]