Senate to Vote on Whitewater Court Showdown

Moving closer to a federal court clash between Congress and the White House, the Senate Whitewater Committee on Friday asked the full Senate to compel President Clinton to release notes of a 1993 meeting concerning the Whitewater case.

Voting 10 to 8 along party lines, the Republican-led committee urged the Senate to approve a court challenge to Clinton’s claim that the meeting notes are protected by the confidentiality of attorney-client discussions.

Chairman Alfonse M. D’Amato (R-N.Y.) accused the White House of seeking to delay disclosure of the documents and of failing to negotiate in good faith.

He said the full Senate is scheduled to debate the White House refusal to respond to the committee’s subpoena. If a majority of senators concur, the matter then would move into federal court for a ruling on whether Clinton must release the disputed documents.

Friday’s committee action marked another escalation in a fight that has been brewing for weeks between D’Amato’s panel and the White House. Both sides appear to believe that a collision course holds political advantage, although many analysts and even some White House officials say that Clinton’s intransigence on releasing the documents is a high-risk political and public-relations gamble.

*

A former senior White House official knowledgeable about the Whitewater case said Clinton may be on fairly firm legal ground in defying the committee but that he will pay a political price for doing so.

“I’d try to avoid the ultimate confrontation,” the former official said. “The problem here is that the courts might ultimately sustain the president, but politically it’s a loser.”

A White House lawyer on Friday held out hope that a deal could be struck before the Senate votes to pursue court action. Special counsel Mark D. Fabiani said that Clinton lawyers are willing to negotiate new terms that would allow release of the documents while protecting the doctrine of attorney-client privilege.

Later Friday, Fabiani indicated that Clinton is willing to waive attorney-client privilege for the papers related to the November 1993 meeting, although the White House will continue to insist that other discussions among Clinton and his attorneys are covered by the privilege.

“We’re still looking for a way to turn these notes over,” Fabiani said. “We’re eager for people to understand what a multimillion-dollar wild goose chase Sen. D’Amato’s been on.”

On Thursday, the White House offered to release the notes of the Nov. 5, 1993, meeting, at which seven government and private attorneys discussed unfolding Whitewater events.

They gathered at the office of Clinton’s newly appointed private counsel, David E. Kendall, to discuss legal and press responses to reports that federal authorities were looking into the Arkansas business dealings of Clinton and First Lady Hillary Rodham Clinton before Clinton’s election.

It is the notes of that meeting taken by former White House associate counsel William H. Kennedy III--a former partner of Hillary Clinton’s at the Rose Law Firm in Little Rock, Ark.--that the committee seeks.

The White House offer to release Kennedy’s notes came with several conditions, which the Senate committee quickly declared unacceptable.

The White House is resisting unconditional release of the documents because it fears that would unleash a torrent of other document requests on unrelated matters and compromise the confidentiality of private and executive branch communications.

“The president believes it’s important for him to stand on principle,” White House Press Secretary Mike McCurry said.

But Republicans said they suspect a cover-up or an effort to drag out the proceedings beyond next November’s presidential election.

“Why are they stonewalling?” asked Sen. Richard C. Shelby (R-Ala.). “Why are they fighting such a legal battle unless there is something there?”

Sen. Paul Simon (D-Ill.) responded in a press release that the committee had deteriorated into a partisan circus.

*

“The temptation to sink into political pageantry has always been with this committee. Now we’ve succumbed to that temptation,” Simon said. “These cultivated confrontations do put political points on the board, but at the cost of damaging the credibility of this process.”

In a minor sideshow, Kennedy’s lawyer challenged the committee’s right to seek his client’s notes. In letters to the committee, Paul Castellitto said the committee’s subpoena was addressed to him and not to Kennedy.

He suggested that the panel reissue the subpoena to the White House rather than to Kennedy, who has returned to private practice in Little Rock.

“Pick on somebody your own size,” Castellitto wrote.

The committee responded by voting, 10 to 8, to issue a new subpoena directly to Kennedy.