Talk:White House travel office controversy/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

initial thoughts

I will undertake a review of this excellent article. It reads well, and carries the reader in a gripping narrative.

Specific points:

I think this is a case where there are contentious statements in the lead that should be cited immediately, rather than leaving it to the body text. These include in particular:

"Critics said the actions were done to allow friends of the Clintons to take over the travel business and that the involvement of the FBI was unwarranted." and

"...stating that Hillary Clinton had made factually false statements but saying there was insufficient evidence to prosecute her."

As a matter of style, I really prefer not to use footnotes in the lead, unless it's to elaborate upon the title or alternate title of the article itself (such as is done here). In a political controversy, by definition people are arguing over the facts and how they should be interpreted, but the two statements describing contentious positions that you mention are not contentious in terms of whether those positions were taken. In other words, I think everybody will stipulate that administration critics said what they did and the final IC report said what it did. If this is a deal-breaker for you, I can put these cites in, but I'd rather let the body of the article do that. Wasted Time R (talk) 20:03, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The first para of "Initial White House actions" should be a section of its own, headed "The White House travel office". Text under the "actions" heading should begin with what is currently the second para thereunder ("According to the White House, the incoming Clinton administration...")
- Done. Wasted Time R (talk) 17:49, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The following seems to me to be a serious claim: "KPMG was unable to do an actual audit, because there were so few records in the travel office that could be audited". Is there any source other than the Times article? I know it is reputable paper, but journos get things wrong all the time, and this seems to be a case where i would have thought there might be some formal documentation on the public record other than that article.
- I've added a further description of the state of the records and why an audit couldn't be done, along with the final IC report as the cite (which in turn is relying on grand jury testimony of a KPMG representative). Wasted Time R (talk) 17:49, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A source is needed for the quoted suicide note.
- Added. Wasted Time R (talk) 19:07, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Foster makes an interesting claim in his note: "press is covering up the illegal benefits they received from the travel staff". Was this ever pursued?
- I've added a parenthetical that he may have been referring to lax customs treatment of goods brought back from foreign trips. I've never seen that this was pursued in terms of any investigation. Wasted Time R (talk) 19:07, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure the caption to the Safire photo is encyclopedic: "New York Times columnist William Safire had endorsed Bill Clinton in 1992, but by 1996 was Hillary Clinton's most infamous critic and a possible punching bag for Bill." (even if it is a colloquial translation of a comment from the White House Press Secretary!)
- Well, to quote the FA guidelines, I'm trying to write "engaging prose" here and there's nothing more engaging than a punch on the nose! And for those current and future readers not around at the time of the Clinton administration, I'm trying to convey some of the atmosphere of the time. Wasted Time R (talk) 19:07, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The following needs a citation: "It was rapidly discovered that the White House had additionally gotten improper access to hundreds of other FBI background reports, many on former White House employees in Republican administrations..."
- Added. Wasted Time R (talk) 19:37, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think perhaps the "Legacy" section might cover, or re-summarise, the effects on all the key players, and other instititions. For example, my reading of the body text is that litigation in the controversy resulted in the enunciation by the Supreme Court that attorney-client privilege extends beyond death of the client. That is quite a thing. The article mentions the fate of the Travel Office employees who were sacked, but not the outcome of their $35M suit. Is there a way to bring some these final effects together in this section?
- I've added text and a cite saying the SCOTUS decision was important. I've added some aftermath on Whitewater and the IC law, but I'm reluctant to do too much more in that direction, since much of the discussion pertains to "greater Whitewater" (including Whitewater proper, spinoff Arkansas investigations of Whitewater figures, Travelgate, Filegate, Vince Foster, and the beginnings of Paula Jones/Monica Lewinsky) and not just to Travelgate. Unfortunately, I've never found out what happened to the travel office employees' lawsuit. I looked back then and I've looked again today; the closest I can find is a West's case law mention from 1998 that is probably about it, but with the 'snippet view' not much more can be discerned. If they had won big it would have been news, so my guess is it either got settled for not much or got dropped, but that's just a guess. Nor have I ever seen a "Whatever happened to ..." type article about Dale or the other employees. So for now this is about all I can see adding to this section. Wasted Time R (talk) 22:28, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I will monitor progress. Good work everyone, esp. Wasted Time R. hamiltonstone (talk) 02:43, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much for the review and the kind words, and I'll start addressing your comments. Wasted Time R (talk) 14:05, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusion

Your edits, together with responses above, are good enough for me. It is an interesting piece. hamiltonstone (talk) 00:55, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks very much! Wasted Time R (talk) 01:07, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]