Talk:Whitewater (controversy)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"Republicans, in their severe attempts to delegitimize Clinton, suffered a substantial political backlash"

I don't remember any particular negative effects on Republicans. Perhaps some specificity would be appropriate?

Here at home, Congressman Jay Dickey (R) was defeated for reelection. His vote in favor of impeachement was not popular in his district. I think there was one impeachment manager from California that was defeated. Most of the impeachment managers were from safe Republican districts (like Asa Hutchinson). Lauch Faircloth was gone. Gingrich was gone. Livingstone was gone (over a sex scandal no less). Henry Hyde was gone and had his own scandal. Whether those can be tied back to Whitewater I don't know. But I think the opinion polls would show that the American people in general were about sick to death of the whole thing and it probably had some effect.
Yes, it would.

"The alleged criminal business dealings of William Clinton, while governor of Arkansas, in the late 1980's."

Perhaps someone could elaborate on the details of these crimes???

I cobbled together some details. I would appreciate if they could be verified and fleshed out. Jfitzg

I put in an article on Jim Guy Tucker, and then came here to put in a link. Ended up rewording the thing and adding additional information. I have tried to maintain NPOV. This issue is so convoluted that it still needs a lot of work.Ark30inf 05:28, 19 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Fiske/Starr

The appointment of special prosecutor previously read as follows (have broken the paragraphs up:

When the Whitewater scandal first surfaced, a special three-judge panel appointed a special prosecutor to investigate the matter.

The Independent Counsel Act had expired in 1992 and was not in effect when the story broke. Fiske was appointed by Reno.

In August 1994, this prosecutor, Republican Robert B. Fiske Jr., released an initial report in which he indicated that there was no connection between the death of Vince Foster and all the indications were that there would be no conclusion of wrongdoing on the part of the Clintons.

Fiske was replaced on August 5, 1994.

Incensed with this result, Republican U.S. Sens. Jesse Helms and Lauch Faircloth (both representing North Carolina) met with Judge David B. Sentelle, the chief of the three-judge panel.

This meeting (actually a lunch in the Senate cafteria) occurred on July 14, 1994.

Before Fiske could complete his final report, the panel dismissed him and replaced him with Starr, who had been Solicitor General in the administration of George H. W. Bush, but had lost his job with the advent of the Clinton administration. Prior to his appointment as special prosecutor, Starr had offered advice to the lawyers advising Paula Jones; however, he did not publicize this conflict of interest.

There were news stories about the Starr connection to the Jones suit prior to the case being referred to the special division.

The current para. about the Starr appointment is factually accurate but needs more info. Ellsworth 17:02, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Starr and Lewinsky?

What is discussion about Ken Starr (outside of his role in the Whitewater scandal) doing here? And Paula Jones, and Lewinsky? This stuff needs to be moved to its proper places (Paula Jones, Monica Lewinsky, Kenneth Starr, William Clinton). I'm a little scared to do it myself just because it's so intermingled with the article. Mkilly 19:37, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Yeah, it seems to be off-topic. Hermitage 04:07, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Vince Foster?

"The Whitewater scandal was an American political scandal which developed in Bill Clinton's first term as president, after the death of deputy White House counsel Vincent Foster."

How is this? The Jeff Gerth broke the Whitewater story for New York Times more than a year before Vince Foster's death, before Clinton was even elected ("Clintons Joined S&L Operator in an Ozark Real-Estate Venture", 8 Mar 1992).

That was my understanding also. The NYT article is available at [1], though you can only read the first 50 words for free. I've added a mention to the intro. Crust 20:23, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] please clarify

There are a few things that need to be clarified in this article:

  1. What is the relationship between Whitewater Development Corporation and Madison Guaranty
  2. In the sentence "...including Seth Ward, an employee of the bank..." which bank? Whitewater? Madison Guaranty? Also in the same sentence "...bank who..." doesn't make sense
  3. "McDougal subsequently involved several others to produce the additional funds..." and "To avoid potential investigations..." - what was wrong with involving other people to produce additional funds? why would that make them want to avoid investigation? this is unclear. are these different people each withdrawing money from McDougal's bank?
  4. "Relating to the Whitewater failure and the Clintons' legal involvement with Castle Grande, they are repeatedly questioned by reporters about the fiasco following Bill Clinton's bid for the presidency." <----when? what dates?
  5. Is there actual proof that documents were removed from Foster's office? What is the proof? who took the documents? what documents were taken?
  6. "...that Clinton had exerted pressure on a Little Rock, Arkansas businessman to make a loan that would benefit him..." Does him mean Clinton?
  7. Is it just coincidence that MADISON appears in the name "Pillsbury Madison and Sutro" and "Madison Guaranty"?
  8. "The Clintons were cleared of any wrongdoing in two reports" - what were the dates the reports were issued?
  9. "When the Whitewater scandal first surfaced, Attorney General Janet Reno appointed a special prosecutor to investigate the matter." and "At Clinton's request, a special prosecutor was appointed in 1994 by the Department of Justice to investigate the legality of Whitewater transactions" <------these sentences seem to conflict. was it clinton's idea or reno's?
  10. In regards to Paula Jones, what are the exact dates of Clinton testifying in the case, and of when the judge dismissed the case? And why was he asked about Monica Lewinisky in the Paula Jones case? and who asked the questions about her?

cheers, Kingturtle 07:24, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Columbia Electronic

The Columbia Electronic Encyclopedia has a much better version of this topic than Wikipedia does (http://www.infoplease.com/ce6/history/A0852144.html) . That's unacceptable, don't you think? Kingturtle 07:50, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

I've noticed that many breaking stories that occurred before Wikipedia went live in 2001 are quite inadequate. The Thomas and Bork nominations, and the various scandals in the past 20 years: the Sununu helicoper escapade, the travel office firings, etc. Maybe we should create a project to go back and fill in the gaps of our political history covering the hot stories of each year. NoSeptember 11:19, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] should be "Whitewater controversy" or just "Whitewater"

Per standard NPOV policy on these sorts of things.

Dicdef of "scandal": a circumstance or action that offends propriety or established moral conceptions or disgraces those associated with it

In other words, scandal in a sense presumes guilt. However, there was no wrongdoing ever found in this matter. Now, some believe there was wrong-doing, but many others don't ... and despite an insanely intense and thorough investigation no wrong-doing was found by the Clintons.

Now, true enough, wrong-doing was found by others. But this article wouldn't be here if it didn't involve the Clintons. They are really the source of its notability. So for NPOV, I propose a page move, with this as a redirect.

Note, that the same standard is applied to e.g. George W. Bush military service controversy ... which many see as "scandalous". Derex 03:06, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

I actually strongly disagree with you. I think that the colloquial name for the incident is the name the article should rest under. Certaintly *someone* did something wrong. But that's beyond the point. If that's what it's called, that's what it's called. That's not someone's POV. Cmouse 06:32, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
I agree with Derex. Anyway, the most common colloquial reference is just "Whitewater" and that's the key word to include. I think "controversy" is more accurate and NPOV than "scandal". Crust 14:45, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
Yes, good point, I had meant to mention that. If the standard is common usage, then plain "Whitewater" is by far the most common. It seems to me that "scandal" is added more as a descriptor, or disambiguator against moving water, than as part of a proper name. If it were a proper name, then "Scandal" should be capitalized. Since we need two words to disambiguate, the second should be controversy. Either Whitewater controversy as a descriptor. Or Whitewater (controversy), if we want to go with common usage, as Cmouse suggests is appropriate". Derex 01:40, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
I think Whitewater (controversy) is an excellent idea. Cmouse 17:27, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../w/h/i/Talk%7EWhitewater_%28controversy%29_f1b6.html"