The real blood sport: the Whitewater scandal machine - Cover Story

Washington Monthly, May, 1996 by Amy Waldman

D'Amato, of course, has accused congressional Democrats of trying to limit the hearings' length in order to obscure the truth, and it is likely he will resurrect that charge to try and extend the hearings past the agreed-upon mid-June closure date. For that reason, it's important to examine carefully the chronology of events--most notably the failure to call David Hale--leading up to the hearings' expiration at the end of February.

For an extended period, the primary obstacle to calling David Hale was that Staff didn't want him testifying, an objection Starr explained in letters to and meetings with both Republicans and Democrats on the panel. To avoid the appearance of partisan scheming, special committees--such as those that investigated Watergate and Iran-contra--have always attempted to maintain majority and minority consultation, particularly when it came to sensitive negotiations with, say, an independent counsel. Republicans on the Whitewater committee were following the same protocol.

Or so the Democrats thought. In a hearing on November 28, D'Amato let slip that there had been unilateral Republican communication with Staff. Confused by a reference D'Amato made to a conversation with Staff, Senator Paul Sarbanes, the ranking minority member, asked D'Amato "whether you've had any discussions with Mr. Starr" subsequent to the last time both parties had met with the independent counsel.

D'Amato demurred, and Sarbanes pressed him. Finally, D'Amato admitted that "I did speak to [Staff] on the telephone" to discuss when David Hale would be called. Democrats suspect, understandably, that that was not the only call between D'Amato and Start. Even Republicans won't deny that there was more than one call. "I believe the chairman made one call and may have made another call to Judge Staff about David Hale," says Robert Giuffra, the chief counsel for the Senate Banking committee and one of D'Amato's closest aides. Deborah Gershman, Starr's spokeswoman, will say only that "we don't comment on conversations with the Senate."

Ben-Veniste continued to try to call Hale. As the minority, the Democrats do not have the power to subpoena, but Ben-Veniste did what he could: He sent letters and memos to Chyrtoff urging him to begin the process, and ever drafted a document subpoena for Hale. There was no response from the majority. In the beginning of January, Ben-Veniste finally reached Chertoff and asked him what was going on with Hale. [D'Amato] is handling this personally ... [I am] out of the loop," Ben-Veniste said Chertoff told him.

Meanwhile, there was another hitch in the effort to call David Hale: Conveniently for the Republicans, Ted Olson wanted Hale to testify later radier than sooner, partly because of his own busy schedule, Again, there was undateral Republican communication regarding Hale, this time with On son. Again, it emerged only inadvertently. On January 31, Sarbanes was trying to find out why Hale still had not been subpoenaed. D'Amato began a lengthy discussion of Olson's schedule. Olson, he said, "advised us that he, was not in the position ... to begin to consider bringing Mr. Hale in, inasmuch as he had two Supreme Court cases to argue the end of January ... and that he would not consider that nor could he take the time until he had disposed of these matters." D'Amato went on to say that the January blizzard had pushed one of Olson's cases back until February, which meant that the committee couldn't consider calling Hale until after that.