White House travel office controversy

During the Clinton administration, the House Government Reform and Oversight Committee investigated alleged improprieties involving the White House Travel Office. After a three-year investigation, the Chair of the committee, Pennsylvania Republican William Clinger, accused the Clinton administration of having obstructed the committee's efforts to investigate the scandal.

As reported in 1996 in Insight on the News, Chairman Clinger's public report included accusations on the following matters:

Obstruction of justice: "From the start, the White House Travel Office matter has reflected a disturbing pattern of resistance by the Clinton White House to any type of public accountability or congressional oversight into questionable activities. The Clinton administration's approach to congressional oversight can best be described as one of 'containment,' in which the seekers of facts are forced to pry the truth out, one brick at a time, from a wall of obstructionism. . . . For more than three years, I have attempted to get to the bottom of this matter and to this day I continue to face a White House intent on withholding key documents and obscuring the truth. By subpoenaing documents from both the White House and the individuals involved, and piecing together the documentary record, it is clear that the White House's initial 'mea culpa' regarding the Travel Office was a whitewash -- a 'limited modified hangout' that was misleading at best."

David Watkins memo: "One document -- the Watkins 'cleansing' memo -- was discovered after two years of investigations among documents belonging to Patsy Thomasson who long before had signed an internal White House document claiming she had searched all her files for Travel Office documents. The 'soul-cleansing' memo went a long way in explaining the real Travelgate story and should have been turned over years earlier to numerous congressional and criminal investigations.

"Clearly, neither Mr. Watkins nor others at the White House ever wanted this version of events to see the light of day Mr. Watkins explained in the memo he had been 'vague and protective' when talking with investigators....

"The memo provides a candid, unvarnished, and contemporaneous account of the behind-the-scenes maneuvering and pressures that led to the Travel Office firings. The damage-control team at the White House tried to distance Watkins, a former close ally, from the actions of others at the White House but this cannot be supported by the documentary record.

The first lady and Mack McLarty: "In his deposition, Mack McLarty said he never saw Mr. Watkins' memo but acknowledged a never-before disclosed conversation with the first lady on May 16, 1993 -- three days before the firings. Mr. McLarty previously told [the Government Accounting Office] that he only had one meeting with the first lady about the Travel Office.

"Now, three years later and after the committee obtained documents indicating a May 16 contact between the first lady and Mr. McLarty, Mr. McLarty acknowledges he had an additional conversation with the first lady about the Travel Office. On the chronology of Travel Office events which the White House initially represented was subject to executive privilege, Mr. McLarty made handwritten notes: 'May 16: HRC pressure.'

"Regarding the pressure he felt from the first lady and Mr. McLarty, Watkins wrote in his memo: 'I would have much preferred to have my staff carefully review the travel Office and make a detailed business plan for the new fiscal year. This proved impossible, though, when the pressure for action from the first lady and you became irresistible.... If I thought I could have resisted those pressures, undertake more considered action, and remained in the White House, I certainly would have done so.'

Claiming executive privilege: "Overall, the supporting documentation that coincides with the revelations in the Watkins memo shows that the official White House story glossed over significant contacts with both the president and first lady. The president was actually informed of the firings by Bruce Lindsey on May 17 -- a fact omitted in the [White House] Management Review even though the authors now acknowledge they were aware of that fact and probably should have reported it. In a disturbing development, the White House has asserted executive privilege over conversations that White House attorneys or staffers for the first lady had with the first lady regarding the Watkins memo."

Accountability: "Should a lower standard of accountability be accorded for the highest office in the land? We often hear 'nobody cares' end it's clear enough that in this White House nobody does care about following the rules. . . . Whether announcing an FBI investigation of employees whose 'crime' was to hold jobs coveted by Clinton family and friends, or improperly requesting and receiving hundreds of FBI background files that they had no business with, or sending a cozy 'heads up' from the FBI to the White House about sensitive information, this administration consistently has engaged in activities that, at the least, give the appearance of abusing the power entrusted to it by the country We should never get used to or tolerate the politicization of law enforcement even if nobody cares."

Conclusion: "Sadly, the Travel Office matter reflects a disturbing pattern of White House resistance to appropriate oversight even when mandated by law or requested by the deputy attorney general. Instead of following the advice of former presidential adviser David Gergen [who worked in the Nixon White House] to put everything out on the White House lawn, the Clinton White House engaged in a consistent pattern of obfuscation which has persisted for more than three years. . . . Too often, administration attorneys responded to investigations as though they were private defense attorneys rather than public servants charged with preserving our trust in the highest office in the land. This pattern was established when former [White House] Counsel Bernard Nussbaum apparently secreted away the Vince Foster Travel Office file from investigators and the public in 1993. This allowed the file to elude public scrutiny until 1995 -- two years after Mr. Foster's death. . . . Mr. Nussbaum justified his actions in keeping Mr. Foster's file from investigators as follows: 'If this were IBM, a smart lawyer would have removed the documents before the subpoena ever got here.' The White House, however, is not IBM. Such behavior tarnishes the credibility of all its practitioners. . . . Even former Deputy Attorney General Philip Heymann questioned Mr. Nussbaum's actions back in July of 1993 when Mr. Nussbaum kept Justice Department attorneys from reviewing Mr. Foster's documents. 'Are you hiding something, Bernie?' Mr. Heymann asked. When Mr. Heymann asked this question, Mr. Nussbaum had already secreted away the Vince Foster Travel Office file in his own office and nobody else knew about it, according to notes in the 2,000 pages withheld by the White House. . . .

"But ask the White House -- was it an election-year play in 1993 when the president signed a law mandating the GAO Travel Office review -- a review that was stymied and delayed by the counsel's office? Was it an election-year ploy when the president's own deputy attorney general ordered a Justice Department OPR [Department of Professional Responsibility] review on this matter and OPR was denied documents from the White House?

"Was it an election-year ploy when the Justice Department began an investigation into the activities of Harry Thomason at the White House and the White House withheld relevant documents for months on end eventually forcing the Justice Department to subpoena documents from the White House?...

"At every step along the way this committee has been thwarted in its investigation by a White House that denied the facts, denied that documents even existed and then denied that there were serious questions of misconduct involving numerous high-ranking White House officials. The Clinton White House has brought this debacle on itself."

The Cinton administration denied any wrongdoing in the so-called "Travelgate" scandal and argued that the probe was political motivated.

References

Paul M. Rodriguez, "Watergate, Travelgate: mea culpas don't cut it," 12 (33) Insight on the News 13 (2 Sept. 1996).