
                         Roanoke Times
                 Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.

DATE: WEDNESDAY, April 20, 1994                   TAG: 9404280005
SECTION: EDITORIAL                    PAGE: A11   EDITION: METRO 
SOURCE: Cal Thomas
DATELINE:                                 LENGTH: Medium

CREDIBILITY LOSSES

A PROFIT of $6,498 for Hillary Rodham Clinton instead of a loss of $1,000. A ``forgotten'' $20,000 loan to his mother by Bill Clinton, which he remembers only after reading her autobiography. Now there are new revelations that Hillary Clinton was far more deeply involved in the Whitewater real-estate venture than she has previously acknowledged.

Two former Clinton campaign workers say that documents detailing hundreds of thousands of dollars in money transfers between Morgan Guaranty Savings and Loan and the Whitewater real estate venture were hidden from public exposure after a New York Times story first reported cozy financial relationships between the two entities in March 1992.

More than profit and loss, what is at issue is the credibility and integrity of the president of the United States and the first lady. Are they telling us the truth?

Either the Clintons had one of the worst accountants ever to pick up a calculator, or they kept their investment records on the back of grocery-store receipts stored in shoe boxes. Could these latest revelations, allegations and explanations be further signs that lies are being told and cover-ups engaged in?

It requires a leap of faith to believe that Hillary Clinton's virgin entry into the highly speculative commodity futures market could have produced the kind of profits she made on a small investment. Obviously she had considerable inside help, and perhaps something more than the kindness of friends who wanted to assist her, with no expectation of reciprocity, in raising money for the unborn Chelsea's college tuition.

Commodity experts and some opinion writers are beginning to speculate that Hillary Clinton's cattle deals were ``covered'' or protected by other traders, who may have absorbed the losses that frequently come with such transactions. Portfolios may have been ``adjusted'' so that other investors would take losses they might write off on their tax returns. There are questions about the legality of this practice. Were benefits to Hillary Clinton being chalked up as investments in possible future influence-buying with the wife of an Arkansas government leader?

A disturbing battle plan is emerging from the White House, in the matter known collectively as ``Whitewater,'' which has many fronts. First, there is the direct attack on those who suggest that the Clintons have been dishonest. Then there are the fall-back excuses that go something like this: We have to understand that Arkansans are not used to the ways of Washington, or we have to be patient because Democrats haven't been in the White House in a long time and they are still learning the ropes.

Next comes the most grudging of disclosures, that what had been suspected is, in fact, true. Taxes and penalties are quickly paid and explanations issued about ``oversights,'' ``lost records'' and ``faulty memory.'' But don't forget the Democrats' statute of limitations, which says that these alleged transgressions occurred long ago, in a place far, far away from Washington, and so have no effect on the Clintons in 1994.

That's Oregon Republican Sen. Bob Packwood's argument concerning charges of ``long ago'' sexual harassment when the ``rules were different.'' Packwood's colleagues have not let him off the hook, and neither should Congress allow the Clintons to escape scrutiny.

Whether or not the Clintons have done wrong in Whitewater and related matters, congressional hearings should be held to clear the air. The public stands to benefit from full disclosure. If wrong was done, it will mean that fraud was perpetrated on the voters when this information was hushed up. The voters then will decide whether to punish the Clintons at the polls. They will also render a verdict concerning congressional Democrats who are stonewalling on hearings.

Republican Minority Leader Bob Dole's call for a quick scheduling of hearings grows more urgent by the day. He is right to threaten a legislative slowdown unless the Democratic leadership stops stalling. Serious questions need to be asked, and the public has a right to the facts, not cute and disingenuous answers.

Information is not flowing from this White House. It drips, drips, drips with excruciating slowness. Republicans have a constitutional obligation to see that the tap is turned on and the whole truth comes out.

Los Angeles Times Syndicate

by CNB