THE investigation into the roles, played by President Clinton and Mrs Hillary Clinton in the Whitewater affair has been thrown into confusion following a startling reversal by the judge leading the inquiry.
The special counsel, Mr Kenneth Starr, first announced that he was going to resign from the investigation to take up a university post next August. But following an outcry from the media and political figures, be said he had made a serious mistake and would remain until the investigation was completed.
His decision to quit after 2 1/2 years heading the investigation was widely interpreted as a sign that no charges of wrongdoing would be brought against the Clintons. Mr Starr, however, hinted that his report would be completed before he resigned and warned that "those who argue that the investigation is over are wrong". He said there were capable staff members who could handle any prosecutions if the investigation were to call for them.
Nevertheless there was relief at the White House at the news of his resignation. Democrats claimed Mr Starr was unlikely to quit his investigation if he was preparing indictments against the President or Mrs Clinton.
Mr Starr is investigating whether Mr Clinton, while governor of Arkansas, was involved in an illegal loan to finance the Whitewater property development in which he and his wife were investors. He is also investigating Mrs Clinton's role as an attorney connected with a related property development, the White House's unauthorised use of FBI files and the dismissal of the White House travel staff soon after the Clintons arrival in Washington.
There was anger in Republican circles which regarded Mr Starr's leaving the investigation as a betrayal of his mandate. This anger was shared by leading newspapers, usually supportive of Mr Clinton, which denounced Mr Starr.
The New York Times said that, "Starr's decision to abandon his duty as independent counsel was irresponsible and a disservice to the nation". The Washington Post editorial said that the last thing Mr Starr could want "is to go down in the record books as the fellow who walked away from the enormous public responsibility of investigating a sitting president when the job is only half done".
Mr Starr was savaged by the influential columnist, William Safire who wrote in the New York Times that "he has reminded us that even a man who has led an exemplary life can wimp out in the end. Never on a question as vital as criminality in the White House has a public servant left behind such a monumental pile of unfinished business."
Mr Starr, who had accepted a senior post in the law faculty of Pepperdine University in California, was also criticised by his own, staff in the independent counsel office. Shaken by the barrage off criticism, Mr Starr announced that he had changed his mind.
In a statement he said: "It has become clear that for the sake of continued public confidence in this investigation, it would be inappropriate to set any arbitrary date upon which to terminate my role as independent counsel."