For over 20 years, rumors swirled that President Bill Clinton’s staff had sabotaged the White House during the transition to President George W. Bush in 2001. These whispers of pranks, vandalism, and petty acts against the incoming administration have now been addressed by Clinton himself in his latest memoir, “Citizen: My Life After the White House.”
While Clinton seeks to downplay the allegations, his comments confirm some of the misconduct that was widely reported at the time, including the infamous removal of the “W” keys from computer keyboards throughout the White House.
In his memoir, Clinton describes what he calls a media “feeding frenzy” over allegations that his staff committed acts of sabotage during the transition following the contentious 2000 presidential election.
“The first to hit were stories that, as we moved out of the White House, I had taken two large bedside tables from the master bedroom; that the ‘W’ key had been removed from typewriters and computers in the West Wing; and that, on my flight to New York on the former Air Force One after President George W. Bush’s inauguration, our passengers destroyed government plates and other utensils,” Clinton wrote.
Clinton attempted to debunk some claims, stating, “The White House staff asked me to take the tables, saying they didn’t want to keep or store them. And no one on Air Force One destroyed government merchandise.”
However, on the claim about missing “W” keys, Clinton offered a more evasive defense: “I didn’t know about the alleged removal of the ‘W’ keys, but the whole thing bothered me because I had made it clear that I wanted a smooth, cooperative transition.”
Despite his denials, Clinton acknowledged that reports of staff mischief, including petty pranks and vandalism, were not entirely fabricated.
Clinton’s memoir aligns with findings from a 2001 investigation conducted by the General Accounting Office (GAO) at the request of then-Rep. Bob Barr (R-GA). The GAO report found that Clinton’s outgoing staff had caused approximately $15,000 worth of damage during the transition.
The report detailed incidents such as the deliberate removal of “W” keys from keyboards, gluing desk drawers shut, defacing bathrooms, and leaving obscene messages on answering machines. Some actions were dismissed as pranks, but others were deemed intentional acts of vandalism.
The controversy was not just about missing keys and glued drawers. Barr called the behavior disgraceful, stating, “The Clinton administration treated the White House worse than college freshmen checking out of their dorm rooms. They disgraced not just themselves but the institution and the office of the presidency as well.”
Despite the GAO findings, Clinton loyalists and Democrats were quick to downplay the damage and criticize the investigation itself.
Jake Siewert, a former Clinton White House spokesperson, dismissed the findings, claiming, “The work on this that Mr. Barr did and the White House did cost more than the people moving out of the office.”
Similarly, then-Rep. Anthony Weiner (D-NY) alleged that the Bush administration exaggerated the damage for political gain, absurdly demanding an apology from Bush officials: “The GAO’s report confirms what many of us have long known to be true: Claims made by Bush administration officials of widespread vandalism at the White House during the transition just weren’t true.”
However, such arguments failed to address the report’s confirmation of intentional acts of sabotage and the financial toll it took on the taxpayers.
Clinton’s revelation underscores a broader issue: the challenges and decorum—or lack thereof—that accompany presidential transitions.
The events of 2001, amplified by the tense aftermath of the disputed Bush v. Gore election, set a troubling precedent for transitions marked by partisan hostility. The transition’s petty acts, including sabotaging office equipment and leaving vulgar messages, may seem trivial, but they tarnished the dignity of one of America’s most symbolic institutions.
While Clinton admits to some of the allegations, his efforts to downplay the severity of the situation are clear. He emphasized that his administration worked to ensure a “smooth, cooperative transition,” despite mounting evidence to the contrary.
The GAO’s findings and firsthand accounts from Bush officials tell a different story. The sabotage, though relatively minor in financial terms, symbolized a lack of respect for the peaceful transfer of power—a cornerstone of American democracy.
Clinton’s admission serves as a reminder of the importance of professionalism and respect in governance. Presidential transitions, often fraught with tension, should uphold the integrity of the office rather than devolve into partisan antics.
For George W. Bush and his incoming team, the damage done in 2001 was more than just physical. It represented a breach of the tradition of goodwill that is essential during such transitions.
In retrospect, Clinton’s acknowledgment of the pranks adds an ironic twist to a saga that many believed was exaggerated. While the missing “W” keys and glued desks may seem like harmless jokes, the episode serves as a cautionary tale of how partisan tensions can erode the dignity of the presidency.
