Serious legal setback for Hillary Clinton

MRS HILLARY CLINTON suffered a serious legal defeat yesterday when the US Supreme Court ruled that notes taken of her debriefings…

MRS HILLARY CLINTON suffered a serious legal defeat yesterday when the US Supreme Court ruled that notes taken of her debriefings by the White House counsel's office must be handed over to the special prosecutor probing the Whitewater affair.

In his successful argument to the Supreme Court, the independent counsel, Mr Kenneth Starr, suggested that Mrs Clinton may "have changed her story over time" a clear implication that he is weighing a highly serious and criminal charge of perjury against her.

Hitherto, the conventional wisdom in Washington had reckoned that Mrs Clinton might be most at risk of a charge of obstruction of justice, in failing to produce documents, or in seeking to minimise her role in the dismissal of the staff of the White House travel office. In the month of the 25th anniversary of the Watergate burglary, the familiar phrases "obstruction of justice" and "cover up" have an ominous ring.

The prospect of a perjury charge is considerably more grave, and the alarm of the Clintons' lawyers increased last week when Mr Starr, who had recently been focusing on events in Arkansas, reopened an office in Washington.

READ MORE

Mr Starr had issued subpoenas for two sets of notes on Mrs Clinton's debriefings by her personal lawyer, Mr David Kendall, of which handwritten records were taken by White House deputy counsel, Ms Jane Sherburne. The first set of notes was on Mrs Clinton's comments about her appearance behind closed doors before, the Washington grand jury in January last year.

The second set was on Mrs Clinton's debriefing in July 1995, about her recollection of the fate of documents relating to Whitewater taken from the White House office of her former law partner, Mr Vince Foster, shortly after he was found dead, an apparent suicide, in July 1993.

Mrs Clinton had argued that because these were conversations with her own lawyer they were protected from subpoena by the attorney client privilege. The Supreme Court yesterday in effect upheld an earlier appeals court ruling that, while Mr Kendall was indeed her private attorney, Ms Sherburne was not. She was a public servant, paid by the taxpayer, and her notes should be made available to the Whitewater investigators.

Mrs Clinton, travelling with her husband in California yesterday, had no comment on the decision, pending consultation with her lawyer.

It is far from clear what the notes contain and they may never be made public, unless Mr Starr chooses to use them in court, or to cite them in his final report. Most lawyers believe that it would be highly unlikely for Ms Sherburne to have written down any note of a statement which might expose Mrs Clinton to a criminal charge. But any hint of variance in her story from earlier statements taken on oath would provide a target for Mr Starr to attack.

Despite an earlier Supreme Court ruling that Ms Paula Jones could proceed with her sexual harassment lawsuit against Mr Clinton, his wife appears more at risk from the long rumbling Whitewater affair.