The Rapids of Whitewater

A congressional investigation of the Whitewater affair now seems not just possible but inevitable. Probably it is some months off. Republicans who are pushing for hearings say they are ready to wait while a federal grand jury in Washington hears testimony involving possible criminal wrongdoing. That is a responsible course, and the congressional Democratic leadership, rather than trying to block an investigation, should seek an early compromise on just what one would involve.

The first of 10 White House employees subpoenaed by the grand jury, including two members of Hillary Rodham Clinton’s staff, were heard Thursday.

White House staff members, it was learned last week, had been briefed on the tangled Whitewater affair by federal regulators, raising serious concerns about whether the investigation was compromised. Those concerns have already forced the resignation of Bernard Nussbaum, the President’s counsel.

In these circumstances Republicans, quite naturally, scent scandal and with it political opportunity. But to dismiss their clamor for congressional involvement as solely a product of partisanship would be to demean the legislative role. Congress’ legitimate oversight responsibilities should not be in dispute. Disturbing questions have been raised ranging from the possible illegal diversion of funds from a federally regulated bank in the 1980s to possible obstruction of justice just in recent months. Answers are needed.

Special Counsel Robert B. Fiske Jr. fears that hearings could jeopardize potential prosecutions arising from his investigation. An agreement by Republicans not to compel testimony with grants of immunity is designed to alleviate that worry.

Conflict need not inevitably arise between Congress and the special counsel. Both should be committed only to getting at the truth in the Whitewater case. Is that too much to ask?