Roanoke Times
Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: THURSDAY, December 23, 1993 TAG: 9403040003
SECTION: EDITORIAL PAGE: A6 EDITION: METRO
SOURCE:
DATELINE: LENGTH: Medium
Two questions about the allegations present themselves:
What's true and what isn't?
What matters and what doesn't?
Regarding question No. 1, 99.99 percent of the U.S. population - including editorial writers - are in poor position to judge whether the president in fact engaged in sexual indiscretions even after his election to the White House; whether in fact he applied improper pressure to prevent Arkansas state troopers from talking about such liaisons; whether in fact a failed Clinton real-estate investment was linked to an improper gubernatorial-campaign contribution in the mid-80s.
Even if question No. 1 can be answered, question No. 2 remains.
On the one hand, the nation's neo-Puritan mood threatens to erase entirely the fuzzy line between a president's public and private lives. That's worrisome: The morality of public policy has far greater impact on the fate of the nation than the gossipy stuff now crowding out serious news. (How does this stack up against health-care reform, for instance?) And if expectations are set too high on all things great and small, public and private, disappointment is inevitable.
On the other hand, at least three questions arising from the allegations do merit serious citizens' consideration:
Did the president, or someone in his administration, make improper inducements - such as job offers - to get Arkansas state troopers not to reveal sexual liaisons of which they were aware by virtue of performing security duty?
That Clinton personally spoke with troopers about the sexual-misconduct charges made by two of them is not in itself proof of such inducements: Clinton's style is to talk to people. Nor is Clinton's contact with them proof that the two troopers' stories are true: Even if the stories are false, the president would have a political interest in suppressing them (and, for that matter, improper offers could have been made).
Did the president do anything that might cast doubt on his stability, or at least his common sense?
During the campaign, Clinton survived charges of having had an extramarital affair by acknowledging that his marriage had had its rocky periods, by refusing to provide details, and by asserting that the rough spots had been overcome. The American people - enough of them, anyway, not to prevent his election - found this a satisfactory explanation, an acceptable drawing of the public-private line.
But the two troopers are claiming more than merely an affair in the relatively distant past; they claim women were run in and out of Clinton's quarters even after his election to the presidency. This still would be a matter between Clinton and his wife and largely irrelevant to his performance in office, except for the kind of trouble it can lead to.
If he used the power of the office and job inducements to attempt a cover-up, citizens might reasonably wonder why Clinton would allow such a situation to arise.
As for the real-estate investment, why after the suicide of the late White House deputy counsel Vince Foster was Clinton's financial file sent to his personal lawyer rather than allowed to be seen by authorities probing the suicide?
In keeping the file out of public view, Clinton has claimed the privilege of attorney-client confidentiality. That may be valid, but it's eerily reminiscent of the "executive privilege" argument Richard Nixon employed to thwart, for a while, the investigation into his abuses of power. On his financial affairs while governor, Clinton would do better to be as open as possible.
These flaps may blow over. Others have. Most of personal allegations carry more significance in the heated imaginations of Clinton-haters than in the public realm. But, at least for now, "character" questions persist, and some of them deserve answers.
by CNB