More hypocrisy from the Left:
Hale Storm
Kenneth Starr formally has the support of editorialists at The
New York Times, though they get prissy whenever the independent
counsel's critics find something to criticize. So when he subpoenaed White
House hatchetman Sidney Blumenthal, the Times saw it as "an attack on
press freedom and the unrestricted flow of information."
This week there's a new flurry of criticism, concerning allegations that some
money from The American Spectator may have reached David Hale, a
potential Whitewater witness against President Clinton. Attorney General
Reno unjudiciously told her press conference that yes, this needs to be
investigated. Her deputy, Eric Holder, released a tendentious letter to Mr.
Starr asserting that while the independent counsel had jurisdiction, he had
conflicts. U.S. District Court Judge Henry Woods down in Arkansas also
has taken it upon himself to demand an investigation, echoing the usual crew
at the White House.
So we have the U.S. government marshaling its powers to investigate how a
magazine spent its money reporting stories highly critical of the incumbent
Administration. The Spectator, while accepting money from Richard Scaife,
is clearly a bona fide publication, with a circulation of more than 200,000.
But so far as we've been able to see, none of the publications reporting this
story sees any attack on press freedom here. The Times decrees, "These
charges need to be examined quickly."
The charges about the Hale money came from an Internet magazine called
Salon (paid circulation zip), based on quotes from somebody's former
girlfriend. We do not believe all the folks writing about this happened across
Salon while browsing the web. It seems to us, rather, that the flurry of
stories has Mr. Blumenthal's fingerprints all over it. And it's not about the
Spectator. The press is missing the free press angle, and also the real point
of the matter. To wit, that Mr. Hale goes on trial next week in Arkansas.
The Hale trial is a story in itself. Mr. Hale is, of course, the key witness in
one of the most damaging allegations against President Clinton--that he
cooked up an illegal $300,000 loan and funneled some of the money to the
Clinton-McDougal Whitewater land deal. He's being charged under state
law for insurance fraud. His attorney David Bowden asserts, without
contradiction that we've seen, that in "the entire history of Arkansas, no one
other person has ever been prosecuted under the statute utilized against Mr.
Hale."
When the insurance-fraud charges were first suggested, Mr. Starr noted
that Mr. Hale was one of his cooperating witnesses; ultimately he was
instrumental in the conviction of former Governor Jim Guy Tucker and
Susan and Jim McDougal. The independent counsel wrote that it would be
"highly unusual, if not unprecedented, for a state prosecutor to initiate
separate criminal charges against an individual cooperating in an important
federal investigation, during the course of that person's cooperation."
Nonetheless, Mark Stodola, then prosecuting attorney for Pulaski County,
insisted on pressing the charges. At the time he was one of three candidates
in the Democratic primary contending for an open Congressional seat; he
was defeated in a runoff. His former deputy, Larry Jegley, is now continuing
the prosecution.
In his letter to Attorney General Janet Reno, Hale lawyer Bowden charged
that Mr. Stodola received campaign contributions from Charlie Trie and
William Kennedy III, both Clinton friends. And also from Truman Arnold,
the Texas millionaire who was a big Clinton backer. Why, Mr. Bowden
asked, would Mr. Arnold "be making such large contributions to a local
prosecutor in Central Arkansas?" Sam Dash, the former Watergate
prosecutor who serves as Mr. Starr's ethics adviser, met with Mr. Stodola
in January 1996, and told the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette that the
prosecutor appeared to be under "heavy political pressure."
"Mr. Hale has provided information that is damaging to the President of the
United States," Mr. Starr wrote in the letter to Ms. Reno he released
yesterday, saying this means the Justice Department has its own conflicts,
and suggesting a meeting to set up "alternative" investigatory mechanisms.
Yet it seems to us that this new flurry of charges against an adversary
magazine and an adversary witness lies smack in the middle of Mr. Starr's
mandate. What we have here is the use of prosecutorial powers in
Arkansas, and also the Justice Department in Washington, to protect Bill
Clinton against David Hale; what needs to be investigated is further abuses
of the power invested in the President of the United States.
interactive.wsj.com |
