Ted Olson was forthright and honest

[As HUMAN EVENTS went to press on May 24, after months of Democratic obstruction, the Senate voted 51 to 47 to confirm Ted Olson as solicitor general. Olson had been valiantly defended by Senate Judiciary Chairman Orrin Hatch of Utah, who in a May 17 committee meeting delivered the following rebuke to committee Democrats who were then trying to defeat Olson through a vicious campaign of character assassination.]

There has been repeated insinuation and accusation that Ted Olson misled this committee concerning his involvement with the so-called "Arkansas Project" and his representation of David Hale. Let me say that I listened to my colleagues last week when the Washington Post article appeared and delayed a vote until we weighed the allegations.

Since then I have taken several days and extensively reviewed Mr. Olson's testimony during his hearing, his answers to written questions, and his subsequent letters. I am convinced that these responses show no inconsistencies or evidence that Mr. Olson misled or was less than truthful to the committee in any way. Rather they show him to be forthright and honest.

Although I have not seen any discrepancies or inconsistencies in Mr. Olson's testimony and answers, I have tried to respect the concerns of other members of this committee by allowing additional time to look into some insinuations against Mr. Olson concerning his involvement with the Arkansas Project and his legal representation of David Hale.

In order to verify Mr. Olson's statements, the committee has had access to a great volume of materials, including all relevant portions of the Shaheen Report [the Independent Counsel's findings] that could be provided by law, letters from key individuals involved with the Arkansas Project, and just yesterday, at Sen. Patrick Leahy's (D.-Vt.) request, a copy of David Hale's testimony at another trial. These together simply confirm Mr. Olson's statements and show that there is no need for additional investigations.

The distinguished ranking member has made a request for some broad-based investigations, which I found unwarranted given the evidence already on the record. Nevertheless, I wrote that any specific evidence supporting allegations against Mr. Olson should "be brought to my or my staff's attention immediately and no later than 5:00 p.m. Tuesday No such allegations were brought to my attention.

Now, I would like to relate some of my findings in investigating the record and alleged inconsistencies. With regard to the Arkansas Project, Mr. Olson repeatedly stated that he learned about the project while he was a member of the Board of Directors [of the American Spectator] and that he did not know about it prior to his service on that board. He also consistently stated that he learned of the project in 1997. In an early response he stated that he became aware of it in "1998, I believe." He later clarified that it was in 1997 and has consistently maintained that he learned of the project in 1997. Each of the quotations used by Sen. Leahy in his so-called "summary of discrepancies" confirms this fact and does not provide, despite the title of the document, any real discrepancies in Mr. Olson's testimony.

Key individuals intimately involved with the Arkansas Project have written letters to the committee confirming Mr. Olson's account of events. These individuals include James Ring Adams, Steven Boynton, Douglas Cox, Terry Eastland, David Henderson, Michael Horowitz, Wladyslaw Pleszczynski, and R. Emmett Tyrrell.

From their different positions, each person corroborates the fact that Mr. Olson was not involved with the origination or management of the Arkansas Project. R. Emmett Tyrell, the Editor-in-Chief of the magazine, stated unequivocally that Mr. Olson's statements with regard to his involvement with the Project are "accurate and thus truthful."

Terry Eastland, former publisher of the American Spectator, conducted a review of the Project and stated he "found no evidence that Mr. Olson was involved in the pro-. ject's creation or-its conduct." Other letters make similar statements about Mr. Olson's lack of involvement before 1997. All of them are consistent with his testimony, and they are not rebutted by any other credible evidence.

To my knowledge the only evidence that contradicts Mr. Olson's sworn testimony and the written communications of the key players in the Arkansas Project comes from David Brock, a former writer for the American Spectator.

But it is important to note that in yesterday's New York Times, Mr. Brock backpedaled from his original account, saying, "It was my understanding that all of the pieces dating back to 1994 that dealt with investigating scandals pertaining to the Clintons, particularly those that related to his time in Arkansas, were all under the Arkansas Project." He did not say that he was sure, or that Mr. Olson knew about the project.

Mr. Brock's statement only confirms the idea that the definition of the "Arkansas Project" has blurred to mean anything related to criticism of President Clinton that appeared in the American Spectator. This definition is unworkable for casting aspersions on Mr. Olson.

`Suggestions and Insinuations'

Moreover, Mr. Brock apparently suggested to one paper that James Ring Adams would have a similar view. But Mr. Adams, one of the lead writers for the project, wrote the Committee that "Mr. Olson had absolutely no role in guiding my development of stories for the magazine or in managing my work."

On a side, but important, note, I want to say that I was disappointed that I only learned of Mr. Brock's accusations by reading an article printed last week in the Washington Post. Neither I nor my staff were aware of any of the charges in the article, despite the fact that the article reported that Mr. Brock had contacted the "Judiciary Committee." Mr. Brock's contacts were only with the Democratic staff, without any notification to the Republican staff.

This is contrary to the long-standing tradition and practice of this committee to conduct investigations in a bipartisan fashion. In the interest of the committee, it is my sincere hope that this does not happen again.

Back to the matter of the Arkansas Project, let me summarize. We have Mr. Olson's sworn testimony along with the statements of key players in the project and numerous letters by Democrats and Republicans who praise Mr. Olson's integrity and honesty, against the lukewarm allegations of one former staffer who has recently backed away from his remarks. Even if Mr. Brock's factual allegations were true, they do not contradict Mr. Olson's testimony.

Now the second possible allegation against Mr. Olson is that, contrary to his testimony, he might have received payment for his representation of David Hale. Mr. Olson has repeatedly answered questions about this representation. He testified that he received no money for this representation, although he had expected to be paid.

Then in a letter of May 9, 2001, in response to further questions, he again stated that he received no payments for his representation of David Hale. He wrote, "Neither I nor my firm has been compensated by any other person or entity for those services-although I am not aware of any legal prohibition against another person or entity making such a payment:"

Now, I have seen no, let me repeat, no evidence suggesting this testimony is not accurate. Mr. Olson responded to questions about these issues at his hearing and in three sets of written questions-each time his answers have been clear and consistent.

But you don't just have to take Mr. Olson's word for it. His answers are clearly supported by the conclusions reached by Mr. Shaheen and reviewed independently by two respected retired federal judges. Under a process jointly approved by the Independent Counsel and Atty. Gen. Janet Reno, Mr. Shaheen was appointed to review the allegations concerning alleged payments to David Hale.

In order to get all the facts, Mr. Shaheen was given authority to utilize a grand jury to compel production of evidence and testimony. In addition, another important element of this independent review process was that the results of the investigation were to receive a final reviewnot by the Independent Counsel or Atty. Gen. Reno--but by two former federal judges, Arlin Adams and Charles Renfrew. At the conclusion of their review, they issued a statement on July 27, 1999, in which they concurred with the conclusions of the Shaheen Report that "many of the allegations, suggestions and insinuations regarding the tendering and receipt of things of value were shown to be unsubstantiated or, in some cases, untrue."

And if the Shaheen Report was not sufficient, on Tuesday Sen. Leahy requested a transcript of David Hale's testimony at the trial of Jim Guy Tucker and Jim and Susan McDougal, apparently because of accounts of that testimony in Joe Conason's and Gene Lyons' book, The Hunting of the President. The Office of the Independent Counsel has graciously made David Hale's trial transcript available to the committee in response to Sen. Leahy's May 14, 2001, letter. A review of the transcript clearly shows further that Mr. Olson's testimony was accurate.

In the transcript, David Hale testified that Ted Olson was retained to represent him before a congressional committee. When asked, "Who pays Mr. Olson to represent you?" Mr. Hale replied, "I do." Mr. Hale did not say that he or anyone on his behalf actually paid Mr. Olson.

The transcript of the trial is fully consistent with Mr. Olson's testimony regarding the Hale representationnamely that he never received payment for the representation, that Mr. Hale intended to pay for these services, and that no one else was responsible for the payments. Mr. Hale also testified that he first contacted Mr. Olson in 1993 in connection with a possible congressional subpoena, and that Olson did represent him in 1995-1996. Mr. Olson wrote in his letter (May 9, 2001) that he was "ultimately engaged by Mr. Hale and undertook that representation sometime in late 1995 or early 1996."

Thus, with regard to David Hale, there is no evidence from any source that Mr. Olson received payment for this representation. Mr. Olson's testimony, David Hale's testimony, the Independent' Counsel report, and review of the matter by two former federal judges all confirm that Mr. Olson received no payment for his brief representation of David Hale.

... This committee has had ample opportunity to verify the statements of Mr. Olson-no discrepancies have appeared, nor is there any credible evidence to refute any part of his testimony.

Truthful on All Counts

We have the statements of individuals involved with the Arkansas Project Staff members of the committee have been able to view the Shaheen report and the trial testimony of David Hale. I know that internal information has been requested from the American Spectator magazine, but I am concerned that such demands may tread on precious Ist Amendment prerogatives of the press that we should all be careful to protect, even though it frustrates all of us from time to time. And I know that Democratic staff have interviewed Mr. Brock.

I believe that the extensive and decisive record before us shows that Mr. Olson has been truthful and forthright to this committee on all counts.

The facts and conclusions I have just discussed-that there are no discrepancies between Ted Olson's statements and Sen. Leahy's allegations, and that the committee has already examined the facts-[raise] the question: What is all this fuss really about?

Sadly, I have to say that the insinuations regarding Ted Olson appear to be an effort to paint Mr. Olson's occasional political involvement as the entirety of his career and character. Nothing could be further from the truth. Ted Olson's career has been as broad as it has been deep.

Mr. Olson has advocated for a wide variety of organizations and has associated with people of many different political ideologies-though let's make no mistake about it, he is a Republican.

While it is true that Mr. Olson has performed legal work for the conservative American Spectator, to focus myopically on that is to ignore Mr. Olson's distinguished work for many other media organizations including the New York Times, the Washington Post, Times-Mirror, the Los Angeles Tunes, Dow Jones, LA Magazine, NBC, ABC, CNN, Fox, Time-Warner, Newsday, Metromedia, the Wall Street Journal and Newsweek. What does this list show about Ted Olson? Is this the kind of clientele that would seek after a single-issue zealot? No way. This list demonstrates clearly that smart people with a variety of views on public matters turn to-and trust-Ted Olson.

Similarly, it is possible to pay too much attention to one person's apparent dissonant opinion when there is a chorus of other harmonized voices. Now, I have to concede that Ted Olson's supporters include a lot of wellknown partisans.

For example, President Clinton's lawyer, Bob Bennett, said that "Ted Olson is a truth-teller" and he is "confident that [Ted Olson] will obey and enforce the law with skill, integrity and impartiality." A similar sentiment was expressed by President Clinton's White House Counsel, Beth Nolan. And Vice President Al Gore's lawyer, Lawrence Tribe, has publicly announced his support for Ted Olson's confirmation as Solicitor General. Floyd Abrams, who has known Ted Olson for 20 years, and who is no right-wing conspirator, said he has "always been impressed with [Ted Olson's] talent, his personal decency and his honor." President Clinton's Assistant Secretary of State for Democracy, Human Rights and Labor, Harold Koh, called Ted Olson "a lawyer of extremely high professional integrity." And William Webster said Ted Olson is "honest and trustworthy and he has my full trust."

These names demonstrate that Ted Olson's experience, character and associations have a tremendous breadth and depth. Now, calls for legitimate investigations are valid and I would support them. But what is happening here with this nominee is something I am deeply concerned about. We have seen too much personal destruction, and I plea with my colleagues not to allow another incredibly accomplished person be turned into a one-dimensional caricature. It is time for this committee to do the right thing and favorably vote Ted Olson out of the committee so the Senate can schedule a final floor vote.

Copyright Human Events Publishing, Inc. May 28, 2001
Provided by ProQuest Information and Learning Company. All rights Reserved