August 9, 1995 - Part 2
August 9, 1995 - Part 2
(10:50:35) Certainly on July 22 1 wish I had looked more carefully into the bottom of the briefcase. I wish I had found the scraps of paper on that day, but that omission resulted in no harm. The note in the briefcase, fortunately, was discovered 4 days later, gave us a clue 1212 to what was bothering our friend Vince and turned over to law enforcement authorities excuse me, and turned over to law enforcement authorities. I believe the fundamental decisions I made were correct, how to conduct a prompt search for a suicide note in a lawyer's office how to handle files in that office. I was required to make difficult Judgments in a unique situation. I was required to balance differing interests in a sensible manner. I believe I did so. I do look back at those days in July 1993 with a profound sense of sadness and re- gret. That is because we lost Vince Foster. But I do not look back with regret at the way we in the White House Counsel's Office con ducted ourselves in those tragic days following his death and way we handled the documents in Vince's office. Let me now say that in my view, the reason we are having hearing on the handling of documents has really little to do with: how we handled the documents in July 1993. I believe, with all due respect to the distinguished Senators on this Committee, that it would have made no difference if during the search on July 22 had shown the Justice Department attorneys a portion of each doc- ument. It would have made no difference if we had even found a note on July 22 instead of July 26. It would have made no difference if I had served law enforcement officials 30 cups of coffee and spoke gently to them in other than a New York accent, which, unfortunately, is the only accent I have. We would still be having, these hearings. We would still be sitting here today. What prompted these hearings is something different. It is the linkage-the unfair linkage of two separate, disparate events. The first event involved my transfer in July 1993 of personal files, including a Whitewater file to the Clintons' personal attorneys follow ing Vince's death, a transfer which was totally proper and indeed, own to Justice Department officials. The second separate, disparate event involves the emergence in the fall of 1993 of Whitewater investigations and the resulting' media frenzy. Linking these two events is illogical, unwarranted; and unfair. They are totally unrelated. What we did- what I did in July 1993, particularly the transferring of personal files, had ab- solutely nothing to do with what has become the now-famous Whitewater matter. Yet our actions in that earlier period, in July 1993, are being judged on the basis of that later event. This linkage creates for some a so-called appearance of improper conduct, but unless in July 1993 you could see into the future, un less you could foresee the unforeseeable, there was absolutely no way to avoid that appearance. I have many talents. One of them is not seeing the future. In any event, it is this false linkage which has resulted in these hearings-it is this false linkage that has resulted in these hearings, not the way we handled the documents in July 1993. This exercise in political hindsight and chronological inaccuracy is unfair, but the fact that life may turn out to be unfair does not justify shrinking from your responsibilities, either in July 1993 or today. You know from the last time I appeared before this Committee that I strongly believe public officials do not have the option of avoiding their responsibilities because they are difficult or inconvenient or may result in criticism. I have learned-believe me, I 1213 have learned this is a controversial notion. I have learned that for many, the concern is not so much for duty or propriety, but for how things appear, or, perhaps more accurately, how they can be made to appear.