Clinton Vows Land Deal File Cooperation
- Share via
WASHINGTON — President Clinton promised Wednesday to “do the best we can to cooperate” with federal investigators who are seeking a file removed last July from the office of former aide Vincent Foster that is related to their investigation of a failed Clinton land deal.
In an interview with wire services, Clinton said that he has “no reason to believe at this time that anyone thinks there is anything in there relevant to any ongoing federal matter.” But he said that, “if anyone thinks we have any relevant information, obviously we intend to cooperate.”
Clinton’s comments seemed to reduce the likelihood of a politically embarrassing federal subpoena for the President’s personal papers.
White House aides said earlier this week that they intended to provide no further information on the Clintons’ $68,000 investment, which is tied up in a federal inquiry of the failed Madison Guaranty Savings & Loan of Little Rock. And on Tuesday, First Lady Hillary Rodham Clinton told a group of reporters that she saw no reason for the Clintons to divulge any more information on the matter. “I just think what we’ve said is adequate,” she said, describing herself as “bewildered” by continued interest in the Ozark Mountain deal.
In his comments, the President did not specifically assure that he would turn over the requested file. And in a session with reporters earlier Wednesday, White House Chief of Staff Thomas (Mack) McLarty said that, while the White House intends to fully cooperate, requests for information would be judged “one by one.”
The Clintons were co-investors in the Whitewater Development Corp. with James B. McDougal, owner of the failed thrift. Federal investigators are looking into its collapse, which left taxpayers with a $60-million bill, and a possible diversion of funds from the S&L; to several of McDougal’s real estate ventures, including Whitewater.
The Clintons invested $68,000 for a 50% interest in the Ozark Mountain deal, while McDougal put up $92,000.
The file may be relevant as well to the Justice Department investigation of Foster’s death, which has remained open after five months.
White House aides said that they have not yet received an official request from the Justice Department for the file, which was removed after officials inspected the contents of Foster’s office on July 22. Foster, the deputy White House counsel and a close Clinton friend, shot himself in a Virginia park.
At the time, he was handling the task of reselling the Clinton’s Whitewater stock to McDougal.
A senior government attorney, experienced in federal criminal matters, said Wednesday that there is “no defense” that could be raised successfully against a subpoena for the Whitewater Development files or for Foster’s diary. This official, who declined to be identified by name or agency, said that he doubts the document request would ever reach the subpoena stage because of the political cost of such a confrontation.
Executive privilege is not likely to be invoked over the documents because “there’s no overarching national interest (involved) that goes to the heart of an executive branch prerogative,” said another government attorney, who has worked on similar requests.
But other lawyers have contended that the Clintons could have a strong argument that the papers are protected by rules of attorney-client privilege.
James Hamilton, the attorney for Foster’s family, also has declined to allow Foster’s widow, Lisa, to be interviewed, according to sources familiar with the matter, and has turned down a government request to turn over Foster’s diary. The diary was recovered from Foster’s office after his death and turned over to his attorney, though its existence was not publicly disclosed until last week.
Investigators are said to believe that the diary may contain relevant information.
Hamilton and David E. Kendall, Clinton’s personal attorney, both declined comment. Questions about the Whitewater Development investment were raised during the 1992 campaign. The Clintons have argued that they have fully answered questions on the issue.
More to Read
Get the L.A. Times Politics newsletter
Deeply reported insights into legislation, politics and policy from Sacramento, Washington and beyond. In your inbox twice per week.
You may occasionally receive promotional content from the Los Angeles Times.