|
 t
midweek, there was growing confidence among many Republicans that
the White House had successfully answered many of the questions
about the administration's actions during the collapse of Enron.
Now, however, it appears some of that confidence might have been
misplaced, after a number of less-than-reassuring statements by
White House spokesman Ari Fleischer.
On Wednesday,
Fleischer was asked, "Is there an informal review underway
at the White House and at various agencies, to see if any other
individuals talked to Enron executives, to make sure it is reported
and out there and made public?" Fleischer said that the president
is focused on two things: a criminal investigation of possible wrongdoing
by Enron, and a review of the government regulatory policies that
allowed the collapse to happen the way it did. Fleischer continued,
If you're
asking is the White House engaged in any effort to determine whether
or not any contact was made with anybody at Enron for any reason,
I suggest to you that there is no hint there of any wrongdoing.
If you have any information, any evidence you would like to bring
forward about potential wrongdoing, we will do our best to track
it down for you. But other than that, I liken it to a fishing
expedition — such a broad request, that we will be helpful
to provide information about any allegations of wrongdoing. To
date, nobody has made any allegations of wrongdoing or has even
any suggestions of them.
Later, when
Fleischer was asked whether the administration would respond to
congressional requests and subpoenas for all contacts between administration
officials and Enron during the collapse, Fleischer answered, "I
think that depends entirely on something that is just part conjecture
and speculation about — on something that has not happened
and that is unknown So I don't know how to answer a question like
that."
Finally, Fleischer
was asked again whether anyone in the White House "is interested
in who called Enron in this White House or in the government."
Again, Fleischer said that unless someone has an allegation of wrongdoing,
the White House will not give out information. "If you're asking
if the White House is chronicling any contact with anybody in this
administration and anybody at Enron over anything, I think that's
such a broad request that it's characterized as a fishing expedition,"
Fleischer said.
The next day,
Fleischer's message was much the same. "If Washington goes
down the usual path of partisan fishing expeditions, I think they're
going to lose the support of the public," Fleischer said. "The
public wants to know that people here in this town are focused on
the wrongdoing where the wrongdoing occurs, and not engaging in
wasteful fishing expeditions." Much of the rest of the briefing
was devoted to Fleischer's defense of Vice President Dick Cheney's
decision not to release information about the outside contacts of
Cheney's energy task force.
It seems clear
from Fleischer's comments that even if it turns out there were more
contacts between administration officials and Enron in Enron's last
days, the White House will not reveal them — unless reporters
first come up with allegations of wrongdoing. Using that standard,
it is difficult to understand why the White House last week released
information about contacts between Enron and Treasury Secretary
Paul O'Neill, Commerce Secretary Don Evans, and a few others, since
there were no allegations of wrongdoing surrounding those calls.
Perhaps ominously,
Fleischer would not say that the White House would comply with congressional
requests, even subpoenas, for information about administration contacts
with Enron. It is possible that the White House is bluffing —
Fleischer's "they're going to lose the support of the public"
line seems intended to scare investigators away from requesting
information from the White House at a time when the president enjoys
great popularity. But perhaps the administration is serious and
in the mood for a confrontation with congressional investigating
committees. If that happens, the White House will likely lose.
In addition,
Fleischer's comments seem to suggest that there are indeed more
contacts between Enron and administration officials than are publicly
known. Last week, for example, he said, "I think it should
surprise no one that people in the administration receive phone
calls from people who are either in business or in unions. It happens
every day." If there are more contacts, it is likely that they
will ultimately come to light, and even if they do nothing to change
the basic the-White-House-did-not-intervene-on-behalf-of-Enron storyline,
the administration will face legitimate questions of why it did
not reveal the information earlier. And any new revelation will
inevitably lead to the question, "What else have you not told
us about?"
The White House
realizes that people with far more authority than reporters —
Democratic senators with the power of subpoena, for example —
might soon make inquires about the administration's Enron contacts.
And it is possible those inquiries will not meet the White House
standard that questioners must come up with allegations of wrongdoing
before receiving a White House response. Whatever the case, the
administration will have to come up with more complete answers than
it has this week.
|
